(PC) Dodson v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DANNY JOE DODSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01298-JLT-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER
AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 13)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
I. Background
Plaintiff Danny Joe Dodson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 16, 2025, the Court screened the complaint and directed Plaintiff to either file
a first amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable
claim identified by the Court. (ECF No. 13.) The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that his
failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action, without
prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 11.) The deadline
for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or a notice of his willingness to proceed on the
cognizable claims identified has expired, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order.
Case 1:23-cv-01298-JLT-BAM Document 14 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
II. Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey a Court Order
A. Legal Standard
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with
any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .
within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their
dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where
appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A
court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action,
failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46
F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987)
(dismissal for failure to comply with court order).
In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors:
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its
docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779
F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).
B. Discussion
Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint or notice of willingness to proceed on cognizable
claim is overdue, and he has failed to comply with the Court’s order. The Court cannot
effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both
the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a
presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action.
Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against
dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose
Case 1:23-cv-01298-JLT-BAM Document 14 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes
progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products
Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in
dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;
Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s October 16, 2025 screening
order expressly warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a
recommendation of dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order
and for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 13, p. 11.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that
dismissal could result from his noncompliance.
Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that
would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further
unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this
action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is
likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case.
III. Recommendation
Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY
RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a Court
order and for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may
file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed
fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page
number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page
limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
Case 1:23-cv-01298-JLT-BAM Document 14 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter
v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-01298-JLT-BAM Document 14 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 4