Summary
The United States Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing David Jakubowski’s § 1983 action without prejudice because he failed to return service documents and comply with court orders. Applying the factors governing dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders, the court concludes that dismissal is warranted and provides a 14-day period for objections.
Holdings
- A court may dismiss an action when a party fails to prosecute, fails to obey court orders, or fails to comply with applicable rules, including where the party fails to submit documents necessary to commence service after repeated orders and warnings.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to obey court orders requiring submission of documents necessary to effect service.
- Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted under the applicable five-factor analysis.
- Whether the Court adequately considered less drastic sanctions before recommending dismissal.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)(followed)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…