(PC) Anderson v. Fresno County Jail, No. 1:2016cv01200 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute re 3 , 4 , 5 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/9/16. Referred to Judge McAuliffe. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen-Days. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 SAMANTHA ANDERSON, 10 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, 13 Defendant. 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:16-cv-01200-LJO-BAM (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5) FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 I. 18 Plaintiff Samantha Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on August 15, 2016. 20 (ECF No. 1). Background 21 On August 17, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either consent to or decline Magistrate 22 Judge jurisdiction within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 3). Thereafter, on August 18, 2016, the 23 Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the 24 filing fee within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s 25 orders. 26 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply, on October 13, 2016, the Court issued an order 27 directing Plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days, to either (1) complete and return the order re 28 1 1 consent or request for reassignment, and submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, 2 completed and signed, or in the alternative, pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action; OR (2) 3 Show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 4 failure to obey the court’s orders. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to respond would result in 5 dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 5). 6 More than fourteen (14) days have passed since service of the Court’s order, and Plaintiff has not 7 complied or otherwise contacted the Court. 8 II. Discussion 9 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 10 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 11 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 12 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 13 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 14 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 15 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 16 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 17 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 18 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th 19 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 20 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) 21 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 22 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 23 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 24 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 25 Despite multiple attempts to communicate with Plaintiff, she has been non-responsive to 26 the Court’s orders. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating 27 her case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 28 2 1 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 2 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 3 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs 4 against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 5 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose 6 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 7 progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 8 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 9 Finally, the court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 10 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 11 Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s October 13, 2016 order 12 expressly warned Plaintiff that her failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action for 13 failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 5, p. 2). Plaintiff also was 14 warned of the potential for dismissal by the Court’s August 18, 2016 order directing her to file an 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee for this action. (ECF No. 4). Thus, 16 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from her noncompliance. 17 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 18 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for the 19 failure to obey the Court’s August 18, 2016 order (ECF No. 4), and October 13, 2016 order (ECF 20 No. 5), and for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. 21 22 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 23 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 24 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 25 file written objections with the Court. 26 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 27 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the The document should be captioned “Objections to 28 3 1 magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara November 9, 2016 6 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.