dismissal for noncompliance with local rule
How later courts described this case
- dismissal for noncompliance with local rule
- dismissal for failure to comply with court 8 order
- dismissal for failure to 6 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address
- dismissal for lack of 9 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SKYLER R. BROWN, Case No. 2:23-cv-1827-JDP (P)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 S. SERGENT,
15 Defendant.
16
17 On January 30, 2025, defendant filed a motion to compel and for sanctions. ECF No. 28.
18 Plaintiff failed to timely file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. Therefore, on
19 March 5, 2025, I ordered plaintiff (1) to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
20 his failure to prosecute and (2) to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-
21 one days. ECF No. 32. I also warned plaintiff that his failure to respond would constitute a
22 failure to comply with a court order and would result in dismissal of this case. Plaintiff has not
23 responded, and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal is warranted.
24 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that
25 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty.,
26 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to
27 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the
28 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”).
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 prosecute and failure to
11 comply with court orders, I have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
12 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;
13 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less
14 drastic alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted).
15 Plaintiff has failed to respond to both defendant’s motion and a court order directing him
16 to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. See ECF Nos. 28 &
17 32. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to
18 manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant all cut in favor of the sanction of
19 dismissal. My warning to plaintiff that failure to obey court orders will result in dismissal
20 satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement.1 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone,
21 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could
22 result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I find that the balance of factors weighs in favor of
23 dismissal.
24 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district
25 judge to this matter.
26
27
1 The March 5 order expressly warned plaintiff that his failure to comply with court orders
28 would result in dismissal. ECF No. 32.
1 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
2 1. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to
3 | comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the March 5, 2025 order.
4 2. Defendant’s motion to compel and for sanctions, ECF No. 28, and request for
5 | dismissal, ECF No. 33, be DENIED as moot.
6 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.
7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
8 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days of
9 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the
10 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to
11 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed
12 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
13 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See
14 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
15 1991).
16
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 ( q oy —
Dated: _ April 16, 2025 Q———
19 JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28