United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF
THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER (DOC.
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Frank Silva, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil
action on June 15, 2016, regarding real property located in
Turlock, California. (Doc. 1).
23, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing
Plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to establish
this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Based on
Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court granted Plaintiff
leave to amend in the event he could allege facts or claims
establishing this Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff was
directed to file a first amended complaint within thirty (30)
days from service of the order. (Doc. 2). More than thirty
days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to comply with this
Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to
comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be
grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions
. . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District
courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and
“[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose
sanctions including, where appropriate, . . .
dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782
F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action,
with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to
comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v.
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure
to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);
Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.
1988) (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 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.
Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Thompson,
782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.
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 because there is no indication that Plaintiff
intends to prosecute this action. The third factor, risk of
prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal
because a presumption of injury arises from any unreasonable
delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West,
Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth
factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of
dismissal. 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 at 132-33; Henderson, 779
F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order directing Plaintiff to
file an amended complaint was clear that dismissal would
result from non-compliance with the Court’s order.
(Doc. 2 at 4).
on the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be
DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court
Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and
Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with
the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections
to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to
file objections within the specified time may result in the
waiver of the “right to challenge the