(PC) Porter v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

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
LARRY JAMES PORTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
YANG, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00311-BAM (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO
ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE
TO OBEY COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 10)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
I. Background
Plaintiff Larry James Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 November 3, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it stated
cognizable claims against Defendant Jane Doe Sergeant for deliberate indifference to medical
need and conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment and a claim against
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, but failed to state any other cognizable claims for relief against any other
defendant. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was directed to file a first amended complaint curing the

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
deficiencies identified in the Court’s screening order or to notify the Court of his willingness to
proceed only on his claims against Defendants Jane Doe Sergeant and CDCR, within thirty days.
(Id.) Plaintiff has not responded to the November 3, 2025 screening order or otherwise
communicated with the Court, and the deadline to do so has now expired.
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 response to the Court’s November 3, 2025 screening order 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.
///

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
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
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. Plaintiff was warned in the Court’s
October 28, 2025 screening order that failure to comply with that order would result in dismissal
of this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute.
(ECF No. 7, p. 12.) 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. Although Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma
pauperis in this action, it appears that monetary sanctions will be 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 HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a
District Judge to this action.
Furthermore, 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.
///

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
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
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 12, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE