(PC) Corral v. Melgarejo ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DYLAN SCOTT CORRAL, No. 2:18-CV-3019-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MELGAREJO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 4, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a status report within 19 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a status report may result in dismissal of this 20 action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 21 110. To date, plaintiff has not complied. 22 The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 23 See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 24 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 25 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of 26 prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 27 and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 28 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate 1 | sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 2 | 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 3 | there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 4 | 1986). 5 Having considered these factors, and in light of Plaintiffs failure to file a status 6 || report as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 7 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, 8 | without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 | objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 13 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 14 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 || Dated: November 29, 2021 Ssvcqo_ M7 DENNIS M. COTA 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28