Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jaymar Dodds v. E. Lascano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 19, 2012

JAYMAR DODDS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
E. LASCANO, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER ECF No. 57 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff Jaymar Dodds ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 6, 2012, Defendants filed a second motion to compel. ECF No. 53. Defendant had previously filed a motion to compel on May 23, 2012, contending that Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants' discovery requests. Plaintiff conceded that he did not timely respond, but requested additional time. The Court granted the extension of time. However, Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' requests for discovery. On October 26, 2012, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' second motion to compel. ECF No. 55. Plaintiff did not respond. On November 26, 2012, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order. ECF No. 57. Plaintiff was provided fourteen (14) days in which to respond. As of the date of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff did not respond.

Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." District courts have the inherent power to 2 control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 3 appropriate . . . dismissal of a case." Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) 4 (per curiam). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute 5 an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. 6 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 7 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 8 requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 9 (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public's interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). This action has been pending since April 13, 2009. The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court's warning to a party that his failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court's order expressly stated: "If Plaintiff fails to show cause or otherwise timely respond, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to obey a court order." Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 2 that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court's order. 3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

1. This action be DISMISSED for failure to obey the Court's November 21, 2012 Order; and 6

2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days 9 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." A party may respond to another party's objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of that party's objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121219

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.