(PC) Jones v. Pfeiffer ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES EDWARD JONES, III, Case No. 1:18-cv-01189-LJO-JDP 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CASE BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE 13 v. TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO COMPLY 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., WITH A COURT ORDER 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE IN 14 DAYS 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed August 31, 2018, together with his motion to 19 file a supplemental complaint, filed January 2, 2019, was screened on May 20, 2019. I found that 20 plaintiff failed to state a claim and ordered him to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 21 ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Instead, plaintiff filed a short motion 22 to amend his complaint that fails to cure its defects. See ECF No. 14. 23 The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a 24 court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 25 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a court has a duty to 26 resolve disputes expeditiously. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 27 (9th Cir. 2002). 28 1 In considering whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, a court ordinarily 2 | considers five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 3 | court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 4 | favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 5 | Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 6 | F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). The fourth factor weighs against dismissal. But dismissal 7 | would promote expeditious resolution, see Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642, and would allow our 8 | overburdened court to more effectively manage the docket. Further delay increases the risk that 9 | memories will fade and evidence will be lost, and at this stage in the proceeding there is no 10 | satisfactory lesser sanction that would protect the court’s scarce resources. Therefore, I find that 11 | the first, second, third, and fifth factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and I recommend dismissal 12 | without prejudice on that basis. 13 As more thoroughly discussed in my screening order, plaintiff has failed to state a claim 14 | against defendants, which provides an additional basis for dismissing this case. See ECF No. 13. 15 | Findings and Recommendations 16 I recommend that the case be dismissed for plaintiffs failures to state a claim, prosecute, 17 || and comply with a court order. I submit these findings and recommendations to the U.S. district 18 || judge presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within 19 || fourteen days of the service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written 20 | objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 21 | The document containing the objections must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 22 | Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 23 || recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 ( Waban Dated: _ November 12, 2019 27 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1 2 3 No. 204. 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