Doyle v. Madera Superior Court ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 THOMAS PIKE DOYLE, SR., Case No. 1:19-cv-01488-NONE-SKO 13 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 14 v. PROSECUTE AND OBEY THE COURT’S ORDERS 15 MADERA SUPERIOR COURT, et al., (Docs. 2, 3) 16 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE: 14 DAYS 17 _____________________________________/ 18 On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendants, but 19 20 failed to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Doc. 1.) The 21 Court entered an order on October 23, 2019, directing Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a 22 motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days of the date of service of the order. (Doc. 2.) 23 That order also warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply . . . will result in a recommendation that 24 this action be dismissed.” (Id.) Plaintiff failed to comply with the October 23, 2019, order by the 25 deadline and has not complied with the order to date. 26 On December 2, 2019, the Court entered an order to show cause directing Plaintiff to show 27 28 cause why the case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the October 23, 2019, 1 2 cause, the Court would “recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be 3 dismissed, in its entirety.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause by the 4 deadline and has not filed a response to date.1 5 DISCUSSION 6 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 7 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 8 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. District courts have the 9 inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose 10 sanctions, including, where appropriate . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 11 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 12 prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., 13 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); 14 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local 15 rule requiring pro se plaintiff to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 16 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson 17 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to 18 comply with local rules); Lopez v. Chase Home Fin., No. CVF09-0449 LJOGSA, 2009 WL 19 1098760, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2009) (dismissal of certain defendants for failure to comply 20 with court). 21 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order or failure to 22 comply with the Local Rules, the court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s 23 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 24 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 25 26 1 The Clerk mailed the December 2, 2019 order to Plaintiff, but the order was returned as undeliverable on January 10, 27 2020. (See Docket.) On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, and the Clerk updated his address on the docket to “AZ-7224, North Kern State Prison (5004), P.O. Box 5004, Delano, CA 93216-9022.” (See Doc. 5.) 28 On January 13, 2020, the Clerk re-served Plaintiff with the order to show cause at his new address, (see Docket), and 1 and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; see also Ferdik, 2 963 F.2d at 1260–61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution 3 of litigation always favors dismissal.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) 4 (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). 5 Here, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 6 the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as it appears Plaintiff lacks 7 interest in pursuing this case. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor 8 of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in 9 prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 10 factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the 11 factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that the failure 12 to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 13 requirement. Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 14 The October 23, 2019, order warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply . . . will result in a 15 recommendation that this action be dismissed.” (Doc. 2.) The December 2, 2019, order to show 16 cause warned Plaintiff that if he did not respond to the order to show cause, the Court would 17 “recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety.” (Doc. 18 3 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the 19 case, would result from his noncompliance with the order to show cause. Plaintiff has shown a 20 lack of concern for the Court’s orders and a complete lack of interest in prosecuting the case. 21 In light of the foregoing, and pursuant to Local Rule 110 and the Court’s inherent sanction 22 authority, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be dismissed with prejudice. 23 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 24 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 25 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s orders of October 26 23, 2019, (Doc. 2), and December 2, 2019, (Doc. 3), and Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case. 27 The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff at his address 28 listed on the docket for this matter. 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 2 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen (14) 3 days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and 4 recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 5 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge 6 will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 7 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 8 waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 9 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: March 4, 2020 /s/ . 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28