(PC) Griffin v. Price ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER LAWRENCE GRIFFIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01518-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION 14 BRANDON PRICE, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 15 Defendant. FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 16 (ECF Nos. 7, 10) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 20 I. Background 21 Plaintiff Dexter Lawrence Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this 22 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare 23 and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning 24 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140. (9th Cir. 2000). 25 On October 18, 2021, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to submit a completed 26 application to proceed in forma pauperis on the appropriate form for non-prisoners or pay the 27 $402.00 filing fee to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 7.) The Court expressly warned Plaintiff 28 that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2.) 1 The Court granted an extension of time for Plaintiff to file his application or pay the filing 2 fee on November 3, 2021. (ECF No. 10.) The Court again expressly warned Plaintiff that failure 3 to comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for 4 failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (Id. at 2.) The extended deadline has 5 expired, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders or otherwise communicate with 6 the Court. 7 II. Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey a Court Order 8 A. Legal Standard 9 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 10 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 11 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 12 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 13 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 14 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 15 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 16 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 17 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 18 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 19 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 20 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 21 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 22 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 23 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 24 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 25 B. Discussion 26 Here, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis or payment of the filing fee is 27 overdue and he has failed to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court cannot effectively 28 manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first 1 and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 2 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 3 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 4 Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against 5 dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 6 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose 7 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 8 progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 9 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 10 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 11 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 12 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s October 18, 2021 and 13 November 3, 2021 orders expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s 14 order would result in dismissal of this action. (ECF Nos. 7, 10.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 15 warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. 16 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that 17 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 18 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, or would be 19 proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, apparently making monetary sanctions of little use, 20 and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has 21 ceased litigating his case. 22 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 23 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 24 district judge to this action. 25 Further, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY 26 RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a Court 27 order and for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. 28 /// 1 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 3 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 4 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 7 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 8 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: December 20, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28