(PC) Roberts v. Kern Valley State Prison ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID NATHANIEL ROBERTS, No. 1:20-cv-000670-NONE-HBK 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 13 v. RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE1 14 KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, CHIEF STATE OFFICER; DELANO HOSPITAL OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff David Nathaniel Roberts is a current or former state prisoner proceeding pro se 19 on this civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. No. 1. On January 21, 2021, the 20 court issued an order directing plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for 21 failure to comply with the court’s July 15, 2020 Order. Doc. No. 26. The show cause order issued 22 because plaintiff still had not filed his amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s July 15, 23 2020 Order despite the court providing plaintiff with repeated extensions of time. Id. at 1 (citing 24 (Doc. No. 15) (screening order permitting plaintiff 60 days to file a first amendment complaint 25 specifically identifying which individual defendant(s) allegedly beat him with excessive force); 26 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 (E.D. Ca. 2019). 28 1 (Doc. No. 19) (granting plaintiff’s enlargement of time permitting 30 more days from September 2 8, 2020 to file first amended complaint, and attaching amended complaint form); (Doc. No. 23) 3 (order granting plaintiff’s second motion for enlargement of time and permitting 30 days from 4 November 10, 2020 to file first amended complaint and again attaching amended complaint form)). 5 The court afforded plaintiff until February 5, 2021 to show cause why this case should not be 6 dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or for failure to comply with the court’s orders and multiple 7 extensions of time to file his first amended complaint. Doc. No. 26 at ¶ 1. The court further directed 8 plaintiff to accompany his response to the show cause order with a copy of his first amended 9 complaint. Ibid. Finally, the court warned plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order would 10 result in the court recommending dismissal without further notice. Id. at ¶ 3. The February 5, 2021 11 court-imposed deadline has now expired. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s show cause 12 order. See docket 13 II. APPLICABLE LAW 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action 15 when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with other Rules or with a court 16 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 17 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Local Rule 110 similarly permits the court to impose 18 sanctions on a party who fails to comply with the court’s Rules or any order of court. 19 Before dismissing an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, the court must consider: (1) the 20 public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage a docket; (3) 21 the risk of prejudice to defendant; (4) public policy favoring disposition on the merits; (5) the 22 availability of less drastic sanctions. See Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 889 (noting court 23 that these five factors “must” be analyzed before a Rule 41 involuntarily dismissal) (emphasis 24 added); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (reviewing five factors 25 and independently reviewing the record because district court did not make finding as to each); 26 but see Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (listing the same, but 27 noting the court need not make explicit findings as to each) (emphasis added); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 28 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of pro se 1983 action when plaintiff did 1 not amend caption to remove “et al” as the court directed and reiterating that an explicit finding of 2 each factor is not required by the district court). 3 III. ANALYSIS 4 The undersigned considers each of the above-stated factors and concludes dismissal is 5 warranted in this case. Approximately, seven months ago the court directed plaintiff to file an 6 amended complaint, but to date he has not done so. See docket. As to the first factor, the 7 expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to be in the public interest, satisfying the first factor. 8 Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999). Turning to the second 9 factor, the court’s need to efficiently manage its docket cannot be overstated. This court has “one 10 of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and due to unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further 11 exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, operates under a declared judicial emergency. See 12 Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of 13 California. The court’s time is better spent on its other matters than needlessly consumed 14 managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. Indeed, “trial courts do not have time to waste on 15 multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and requirements of our courts.” 16 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of 17 district court’s involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where petitioner failed to 18 timely respond to court order and noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon 19 the size and load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our 20 beleaguered trial judges.”). Delays inevitably have the inherent risk that evidence will become 21 stale or witnesses' memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, thereby 22 satisfying the third factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Finally, the instant 23 dismissal is a dismissal without prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than a dismissal with 24 prejudice, thereby addressing the fifth factor. 25 After considering the factors set forth supra and binding case law, the undersigned 26 recommends dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and Local Rule 110. 27 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 28 1. This case be dismissed without prejudice. 1 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate any pending motions/deadlines and close 2 | this case. 3 NOTICE TO PARTIES 4 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 6 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 7 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 8 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 9 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 10 | 838-39 (Oth Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 9, 2021 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28