Summary
The court recommends dismissal without prejudice of Tommie Lee Jackson’s action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim. The recommendation follows Jackson’s failure to file an amended complaint or respond to an order to show cause, and it advises the parties of the fourteen-day objection period.
Holdings
- The balance of the applicable factors favored dismissal without prejudice because plaintiff failed to obey orders directing him to file an amended complaint and respond to the order to show cause, after receiving an express warning that noncompliance could result in dismissal.
- The court possesses inherent authority to control its docket and may impose sanctions, including dismissal, when a party fails to comply with court orders or applicable rules.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
- Whether the five-factor dismissal framework supports dismissal despite the policy favoring disposition on the merits.
Disposition
dismissed
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…