Esmeling L. Bahena v. Robicheaux, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00788
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESMELING L. BAHENA, No. 1:22-cv-00788-KES-FRS (BAM) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 ROBICHEAUX, et al., (ECF No. 26) 15 Defendants. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff Esmeling L. Bahena (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 14, 2026, the Court screened the first amended complaint and directed 22 Plaintiff to either file a second amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to 23 proceed on the cognizable claims identified by the Court. (ECF No. 26.) The Court expressly 24 warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this 25 action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute. (Id.) The 26 deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or a notice of his willingness to proceed on the 27 cognizable claims identified has expired, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order. 28 /// 1 II. Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey a Court Order 2 A. Legal Standard 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 4 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 5 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 6 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 7 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 8 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 9 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 10 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 11 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 12 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 13 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 14 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 15 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 16 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 17 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 18 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 19 B. Discussion 20 Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint or notice of willingness to proceed on cognizable 21 claims is overdue, and he has failed to comply with the Court’s order. The Court cannot 22 effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both 23 the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 24 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 25 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 26 Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against 27 dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 28 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose 1 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 2 progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 3 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 4 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 5 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 6 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s January 14, 2026 screening 7 order expressly warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a 8 recommendation of dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order 9 and for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 26.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal 10 could result from his noncompliance. 11 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that 12 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 13 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this 14 action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is 15 likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case. 16 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 17 Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY 18 RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a Court 19 order and for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. 20 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 21 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 22 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 23 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 24 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 25 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 26 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 27 limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 28 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 1 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 2 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: March 3, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28