Opinion
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Fernando L. Guzman ("Plaintiff"), appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant action on March 3, 2011. He challenges the validity of foreclosure on certain real property and names Bank of America, Recontrust Company, Does I through X and ROE Corporations I through V as defendants. He names HomEq Servicing and Wells Fargo Bank as Defendants.
On March 10, 2011, the Court dismissed the complaint, but granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The Court provided Plaintiff with the relevant legal standards and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days. More than fourteen (14) days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to follow a Court order and failure to state a claim.
DISCUSSION
Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the 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. Housing 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); Carey v. King , 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. United States Postal Serv. , 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan , 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, 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 alternatives. Thompson , 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson , 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone , 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik , 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali , 46 F.3d at 53.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the public's interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This case has been pending since early March 2011, and Plaintiff has been given opportunity to correct the deficiencies in his complaint.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to follow a court order and for failure to state a claim.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst , 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
It appears that Mr. Tikal was arrested in February 2011 on a fugitive warrant and charged with 31 felony counts, including real estate and mortgage securities fraud, grand theft and filing phony documents. The indictments arise out of his conduct in Alameda County, California. Stanislaus County has also launched an investigative probe into unnamed mortgage elimination scams.
Mr. Tikal and the KATN Trust also were named in two recent civil lawsuits filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court by Wells Fargo Bank. The suits relate to allegedly bogus home transactions in Modesto and Ceres, California. Wells Fargo Bank v. Leon, et al., Case No. 660603; Wells Fargo Bank v. Lopez, et al., Case No. 660954.