(PC) Luna v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Dept.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DAVID LUNA, Case No. 2:23-cv-01807-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT THIS MATTER BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN Defendants. DAYS 16 17 On January 16, 2024, the court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within 18 thirty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on defendants. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff 19 failed to comply with that order. Therefore, on July 10, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to show cause 20 why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 21 court orders. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause, and the time to 22 do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted. 23 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 24 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 25 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 26 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 27 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). 28 1 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 2 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 3 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 4 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 5 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 6 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 7 U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 8 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 9 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 10 In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I 11 have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 12 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 13 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” 14 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted). 15 Here, plaintiff has failed to respond to court orders directing him to provide necessary 16 service documents. See ECF Nos. 11 & 13. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious 17 resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the 18 defendant all support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my warning to plaintiff that 19 failure to obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the 20 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 21 F.2d at 1424. The July 10, 2024 order expressly warned plaintiff that his failure to comply with 22 court orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff had adequate warning that 23 dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I find that the balance of factors 24 weighs in favor of dismissal. 25 Therefore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 26 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 27 comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the July 10, 2024 order. 28 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 3 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 4 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 5 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 6 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 7 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 8 || Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 9 | 1991). 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ October 23, 2024 Q————. 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28