(PC) Pierce v. Sacramento News & Review et al, No. 2:2015cv02650 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 4/18/18 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
(PC) Pierce v. Sacramento News & Review et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEAVON PIERCE, 12 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-2650-KJM-CMK-P Plaintiff, vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION SACRAMENTO NEWS & REVIEW, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 26, 2017, the court directed plaintiff to pay the full filing 19 fee for this action within 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply will result in 20 dismissal of this action for lack. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. To date, plaintiff has failed to comply. 21 The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of 22 dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. 23 U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public’s 24 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) 25 the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 26 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an 2 appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. 3 See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is 4 appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 5 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to 6 comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 7 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 9 Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee for this case as directed, the undersigned finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 10 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be 11 dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and 12 orders. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 14 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 17 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 18 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 20 21 22 DATED: April 18, 2018 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 2