Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissal without prejudice of Michael Laurence Hoke’s action against M. Nunez and others. The recommendation is based on failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders requiring an amended complaint, and failure to state a claim.
Holdings
- A court may dismiss an action when a party fails to prosecute, fails to obey a court order, or fails to comply with applicable local rules, including as a sanction under the court's inherent docket-management authority.
- Dismissal without prejudice was warranted because plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, and the balance of the dismissal factors favored dismissal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff failed to prosecute and failed to comply with orders requiring an amended complaint and response to an order to show cause.
- Whether the court's consideration of the required dismissal factors supported dismissal despite the policy favoring disposition on the merits.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
- Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…