Pringle v. Walmart Distribution Center ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AL PRINGLE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00468-BAM 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO DISMISS ACTION FOR 9 v. FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 10 WALMART DISTRIBUTION CENTER, et al., (Doc. No.39) 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Al Pringle (“Plaintiff”), currently proceeding in propria persona, initiated this 14 employment discrimination action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of 15 Tulare, on August 24, 2018. Defendant Walmart Inc. (“Defendant”) removed the matter to this 16 Court on April 10, 2019.1 (Doc. No. 1.) 17 On October 16, 2020, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause in 18 writing within twenty-one (21) days why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to obey a 19 Court order and his failure to appear at the October 15, 2020 telephonic status conference. (Doc. 20 No. 39.) Plaintiff was warned that the failure to respond to the Court’s order would result in the 21 imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this action for failure to comply with court orders. 22 (Id. at 2.) 23 The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the order to show cause has passed and Plaintiff 24 has not complied with the Court’s order. 25 I. Discussion 26 27 1 The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action for all purposes, including trial 28 and entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. Nos. 15, 17, 18.) 1 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 2 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 3 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 4 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 5 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 6 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 7 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 8 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 9 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 10 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 11 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 12 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) 13 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 14 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 15 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 16 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 17 Here, this action has been pending since April 2019 and Plaintiff has failed to appear or 18 respond to Court orders. The action cannot proceed without Plaintiff’s cooperation and 19 compliance with the Court’s orders. Moreover, the Court cannot hold this case in abeyance 20 awaiting compliance by Plaintiff. The Court additionally cannot effectively manage its docket if 21 Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors 22 weigh in favor of dismissal. 23 The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, as a 24 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 25 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs 26 against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 27 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose 28 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 1 progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. 2 Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 3 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the Court’s order will result in 4 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 5 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s October 16, 2020 order 6 expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action. 7 (Doc. No. 39.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his 8 noncompliance. 9 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that 10 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 11 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff’s failure to appear indicates that 12 monetary sanctions are of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have 13 no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case. 14 II. Conclusion and Order 15 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, 16 for Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute this action. All pending 17 motions, if any, are terminated. IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: November 13, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28