(PC) Cuellar v. Anrig 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
TRAVIS JUSTIN CUELLAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEANE ERNST ANRIG, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 1:25-cv-00870-SAB (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE
TO THIS ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
(ECF No. 9)
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
I.
BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff complaint, found that Plaintiff stated
cognizable denial of access to the courts claims against Defendants Anrig, Kaleh and Behe, and
cognizable retaliation claims against Defendants Kaleh and Villalobos. (ECF No. 8.) The Court
granted Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint or notify the Court of his intent to
proceed only on the cognizable claims. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s November 17,
2025 order. Therefore, on January 6, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the
action should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff has failed to respond to the order to show

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
cause and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted.
II.
DISCUSSION
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).
Here, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or notified the Court of his intent to
proceed on the claims found to be cognizable. This case cannot proceed without Plaintiff’s
compliance with the Court’s orders. 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

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
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). Plaintiff has not moved this case forward
toward disposition on the merits. He has instead stopped complying with this Court's orders and
the Local Rules. Therefore, the fourth factor — the public policy favoring disposition of cases on
their merits — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440.
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 January 6, 2026, order
expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a
recommendation to dismiss the action for failure to comply with a court order. (ECF No. 9.)
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 has failed to either file an amended
complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed solely on the claims found to be cognizable.
III.
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a
district judge to this action.
Further, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY
RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey Court orders
and for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action.
This Findings and Recommendation 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 this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages, including exhibits. The document should be

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
captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is 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, 839
(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2026
STANLEY A. BOONE
United States Magistrate Judge