Douglas Urquilla v. CDCR, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01215
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS URQUILLA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01215-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 14 CDCR, et al., DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 15 Defendants. AND FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

16 (ECF No. 6) 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff Douglas Urquilla (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on December 5, 2024, 20 and the action was transferred to this Court on September 16, 2025. (ECF Nos. 1, 4.) 21 Plaintiff failed to pay the $405.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, on September 17, 2025, the Court directed 23 Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the $405.00 filing fee for 24 this action within thirty days after service. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff has not filed an application to 25 proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee, and the deadline in which to do so has passed. 26 II. Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey a Court Order 27 A. Legal Standard 28 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 1 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 2 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 3 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 4 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 5 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 6 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 7 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 8 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 9 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 10 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 11 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) 12 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 13 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 14 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 15 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 16 B. Discussion 17 Here, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application or payment of the filing fee is overdue, and 18 he has failed to comply the with the Court’s order. The Court cannot effectively manage its 19 docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second 20 factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 21 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 22 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 23 Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against 24 dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 25 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose 26 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 27 progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 28 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 1 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 2 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 3 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order issued on September 4 17, 2025, warned Plaintiff that his failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to 5 pay the filing fee would result in dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 6.) Thus, Plaintiff had 6 adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. 7 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that 8 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 9 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. As Plaintiff has not applied to proceed in forma 10 pauperis and has failed to pay the filing fee, monetary sanctions likely would be of little use. 11 Further, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has 12 ceased litigating his case. 13 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 14 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a 15 District Judge to this action. 16 Further, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY 17 RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order 18 and for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. 19 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 21 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 22 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 23 Findings and Recommendation.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or 24 include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if already in 25 the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 2 in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. 3 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 4 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

7 Dated: October 28, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28