Doyle v. Madera Superior Court ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 THOMAS PIKE DOYLE, SR., Case No. 1:19-cv-01558-AWI-BAM 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 11 v. FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR FILE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 12 MADERA SUPERIOR COURT, et al., FORMA PAUPERIS, FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, AND 13 Defendants. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 (Doc. No. 3) 15 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Thomas Pike Doyle, Sr. (“Plaintiff”), a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, 18 filed this civil action on November 1, 2019. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application 19 seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.) However, 20 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was not adequately completed and, on 21 November 2, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a completed application to proceed in 22 forma pauperis or pay the applicable filing fee within thirty (30) days. (Doc. No. 3.) The 23 relevant time period for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s order has expired and Plaintiff has 24 not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee, or otherwise 25 responded to the Court’s order. 26 I. Discussion 27 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 1 v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 2 prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or 3 failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 4 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260– 5 61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 6 complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for 7 failure to comply with court order). 8 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 9 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage 10 its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition 11 of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 12 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988); see 13 also In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 14 (standards governing dismissal for failure to comply with court orders). These factors guide a 15 court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take 16 action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted). 17 The Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the 18 Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been pending 19 since November 1, 2019, and can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and 20 compliance with the Court’s order. Moreover, the matter cannot simply remain idle on the 21 Court’s docket, unprosecuted, awaiting Plaintiff’s compliance. Indeed, a civil action may not 22 proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma 23 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. As for the risk of prejudice to defendants, a presumption 24 of injury arises from any unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 25 1227–28; Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Regarding the fourth 26 factor, while public policy favors disposition on the merits and therefore weighs against 27 dismissal, it is Plaintiff’s own conduct which is at issue here and which has stalled the case. In 1 monetary sanction has little to no benefit in a case in which Plaintiff has ceased responding to 2 the Court’s orders. Further, Plaintiff was warned that his failure to submit an application to 3 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee would result in a recommendation to dismiss 4 this action. (Doc. No. 3.) A warning that the failure to obey a court order will result in 5 dismissal can meet the consideration of alternatives requirement. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1229; 6 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 7 II. Conclusion and Recommendation 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 9 prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma 10 pauperis, failure to obey a Court order, and failure to prosecute. 11 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Local Rule 13 304. Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 14 Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned 15 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 16 failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to 17 challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 18 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: March 27, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27