United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Hatem Ali is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter
was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule
302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A settlement
conference was scheduled in this matter for June 16, 2016.
However, that settlement conference was vacated after
plaintiff failed to file a timely confidential settlement
conference statement. (Dkt. No. 12.)
on June 16, 2016, the undersigned issued an order to show
cause in writing within fourteen days as to why this action
should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No.
13.) Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to file a written
response to that order would result in the undersigned
recommending that this matter be dismissed. (Id. at
2.) Nonetheless, the time for plaintiff to respond has
expired and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s
order in any way.
factors to be weighed in determining whether to dismiss a
case for lack of prosecution are as follows: (1) the public
interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring
disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less
drastic sanctions. Hernandez v. City of El Monte,
138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998); Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); Carey
v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Dismissal
is a harsh penalty that should be imposed only in extreme
circumstances. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 398;
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260.
of a party to comply with the any order of the court
“may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and
all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the
inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any
individual representing himself or herself without an
attorney is nonetheless bound by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Local Rules, and all applicable law. Local
Rule 183(a). A party’s failure to comply with
applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any
other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules.
plaintiff failed to file a timely settlement conference
statement. The court issued an order to show cause that
provided plaintiff with an opportunity to show good cause for
his conduct and plaintiff failed to respond to that order in
any way. The order to show cause specifically warned
plaintiff that the failure to file a written response to that
order would result in a recommendation that this matter be
lack of prosecution of this case renders the imposition of
monetary sanctions futile. Moreover, the public interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need
to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the
defendants all support the imposition of the sanction of
dismissal. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the
merits counsels against dismissal. However, plaintiffs
failure to prosecute the action in any way makes disposition
on the merits an impossibility. The undersigned will
therefore recommend that this action be dismissed due to
plaintiffs failure to prosecute as well as his failure to
comply with the court’s orders. See
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1) Plaintiffs July 31, 2015 complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1) be
dismissed without prejudice; and
2) This action be closed.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, any party may file written objections with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply
to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen
days after service of the 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 (9th Cir. 1991).