Wiley v. Goodman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANOTHONY WILEY, SR., ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-1407-LJO JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT 13 v. ) PREJUDICE ) 14 ROBERT GOODMAN, et al., ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 Anthony Wiley, Sr. asserts the defendants are liable for a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 18 hate crime against a disabled American, judicial misconduct, judicial corruption, and RICO violation. 19 (See generally Doc. 1) Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules and failed to 20 prosecute this action, the Court recommends the matter be DISMISSED. 21 I. Background 22 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on October 7, 2019. (Doc. 1) The Court 23 noted that the same date as Plaintiff filed the instant action, he filed a different complaint against 24 Robert Goodman, the Bakersfield Police Department, and the Kern County Superior Court, initiating 25 Case No. 1:19-cv-001406-AWI-JLT. The Court reviewed the complaints in both actions and found the 26 parties in the two actions are the same, the facts alleged are similar, the claims to do not significantly 27 differ, and the relief requested was the same. Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this 28 action should not be dismissed as duplicative. (Doc. 4) 1 On October 31, 2019, the Court’s order was returned as “Undeliverable, Not Deliverable as 2 Addressed” by the United States Postal Service. On November 1, 2019, the Court attempted re-service 3 at a different address for Plaintiff, based upon his address identified in Case No. 1:19-cv-01406-AWI- 4 JLT. However, this was also returned as “Undeliverable, Attempted- Not Known” by the United States 5 Postal Service.” To date, Plaintiff’s correct address remains unknown, and he has not identified a 6 proper mailing address for the Court. 7 II. Requirements of the Local Rules 8 Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the 9 Court apprised of his current address: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is 10 returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties 11 within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 12 prejudice for failure to prosecute.” LR 183(b). Because more than 63 days have passed since the first 13 document was returned as undeliverable on October 31, 2019, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the 14 Local Rules. 15 III. Failure to Prosecute 16 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 17 court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 18 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a 19 party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 20 rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure to comply 21 with local rules); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 22 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 23 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 24 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the 25 Local Rules, or failure to obey a court order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) 26 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 27 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 28 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also 1 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. 2 IV. Discussion and Analysis 3 To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 4 the Local Rules, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in 5 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice 6 to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 7 availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 8 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831. 9 A. Public interest and the Court’s docket 10 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 11 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 12 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 13 favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 14 managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will 15 not hold, this case in abeyance based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and 16 failure to take action to continue prosecution in a timely manner. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & 17 Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining a plaintiff has the burden “to move toward… 18 disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics”). Accordingly, these 19 factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the action. 20 B. Prejudice to Defendants 21 To determine whether the defendants have been prejudiced, the Court must “examine whether 22 the plaintiff’s actions impair the … ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision 23 of the case.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 769 F.2d 611, 618 24 (9th Cir. 1985)). Significantly, a presumption of prejudiced arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays 25 the prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 26 Plaintiff has not taken any action to prosecute the action following the filing of the complaint 27 and has not communicated a proper mailing address to the Court. Accordingly, this factor weighs in 28 favor of dismissal. 1 C. Consideration of less drastic sanctions 2 The Court “abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering 3 the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” United States v. Nat’l Medical 4 Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). However, no lesser sanction is feasible given the 5 Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff. 6 D. Public policy 7 Given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and prosecute the action, the policy 8 favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. See 9 Malone, 833 F.2d at 133, n.2 (explaining that although “the public policy favoring disposition of cases 10 on their merits . . . weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). 11 V. Findings and Recommendations 12 Plaintiff has failed to follow the requirements of the Local Rules or to prosecute this action. 13 As set forth above, the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of dismissal of the matter. 14 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS: 15 1. This action be DISMISSED; and 16 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action. 17 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 19 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen 20 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections 21 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 22 Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 23 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); 24 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014). 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: January 7, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE