(PC) Kitilya v. California Medical Facility et al, No. 2:2018cv01033 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 7/11/2018 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
(PC) Kitilya v. California Medical Facility et al Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND JUSTO KITILYA, 12 13 14 No. 2:18-CV-1033-MCE-CMK-P Plaintiff, vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 / 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 23, 2018, the court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint 20 within 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint may result in 21 dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 22 See Local Rule 110. To date, plaintiff has not complied. 23 The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of 24 dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. 25 U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's 26 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 (3) the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 2 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 3 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an 4 appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. 5 See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is 6 appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 7 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to 8 comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 9 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to file an 11 amended complaint as directed, the court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 12 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be 13 dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and 14 orders. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 16 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 17 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 19 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 20 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 23 24 DATED: July 11, 2018 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 2