Chad Whittington v. State of California ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHAD WHITTINGTON, ) Case No. CV 23-6211-MWF (JPR) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 12 v. ) TO STATE A CLAIM ) 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) 14 Defendant. ) ) 15 ) 16 On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a civil-rights Complaint 17 challenging the state court’s finding that he was incompetent to 18 stand trial. On October 13, the Court dismissed the Complaint 19 with leave to amend, explaining that Plaintiff had failed to 20 state a claim. Meanwhile, however, Plaintiff was apparently 21 found competent once again and was transferred back to jail from 22 the state hospital to await trial. The Court gave Plaintiff 28 23 days to file an amended complaint, but to date he has neither 24 done so nor requested an extension of time. In the order 25 dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend, the Court warned 26 him that if he “fail[ed] to timely file a sufficient” amended 27 complaint, his lawsuit could be dismissed. 28 1 1 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per 2 curiam), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a pro se 3 plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to prosecute. See also Link v. 4 Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (“The power to invoke 5 [dismissal] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the 6 disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the 7 calendars of the District Courts.”). A court must consider “(1) 8 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 9 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 10 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 11 disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability 12 of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 13 Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice 14 to the defendants that can be overcome only with an affirmative 15 showing of just cause by the plaintiff. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 16 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 17 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 18 militate in favor of dismissal. In particular, Plaintiff has 19 offered no explanation for his failure to file an amended 20 complaint fixing the deficiencies identified by the Court. Thus, 21 he has not rebutted the presumption of prejudice to Defendants. 22 No less drastic sanction is available, as the Complaint fails to 23 state a claim and therefore cannot proceed, and Plaintiff is 24 unable or unwilling to comply with the instructions for fixing 25 his allegations. Indeed, now that he has been returned to jail 26 to await trial, he may no longer wish to pursue his claim 27 challenging the competency proceedings. And because his lawsuit 28 cannot go forward in its current form, the Court is unable to 2 manage its docket. Although the fourth Carey factor weighs 2 against dismissal — as it always does — together the other 3 | factors outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of the case 4f/on its merits. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (as amended) (upholding dismissal of pro se 6 civil-rights action for failure to timely file amended complaint 7 |) remedying deficiencies in caption); Baskett v. Quinn, 225 F. 8 || App’x 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding dismissal of pro se civil-rights action for failure to state claim or timely file 10 | amended complaint). 11 ORDER 12 Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to 13 | prosecute and failure to state a claim. 14 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 15 DATED: January 18, 2024 2M Vien 4b) MYCHAEL W. FITZ a D 17 U.S. DISTRICT Le 18 Presented by: 19 Jean Rosenbluth 20 Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28