(PC)Brown v. Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN BROWN, No. 2: 20-cv-1369 WBS KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER & FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RIO CONSUMNES CORRECTIONAL CENTER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a county prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 21, 2021, defendant filed a motion to compel 20 discovery. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion to compel. On 21 February 23, 2021, the undersigned granted plaintiff twenty-one days from the date of the order to 22 show cause why the motion to compel should not be granted. (ECF No, 18.) Twenty-one days 23 passed and plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause. Accordingly, for the reasons 24 stated herein, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 25 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that 26 power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate ... dismissal of a case.” 27 Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, 28 with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or 1 failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) 2 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 3 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local 4 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 5 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. 6 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to 7 comply with local rules). 8 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 9 order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the 10 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 11 (3) the risk of prejudice to the Respondents; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 12 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 13 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d 14 at 1423-24. 15 The undersigned finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 16 and the court’s interest in managing the docket weight in favor of dismissal because this action 17 has been pending since July 6, 2020. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondent, also 18 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from an unreasonable delay in 19 prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 20 factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the 21 factors in favor of dismissal. Because it appears that plaintiff is no longer interested in 22 prosecuting this action, it does not appear that less drastic alternatives are warranted. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 24 17) is vacated; 25 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to 26 prosecute. 27 //// 28 //// 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 4 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 6 | objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 7 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 8 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 | Dated: March 23, 2021 i Fens Arn 11 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 Br1369.fr 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28