(PC) Casey v. Galaz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES ARTHUR CASEY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00559-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN ACTION TO DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. 14 R. GALAZ, CHARLES VIEW, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR A FAILURE TO 15 Defendants. OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FOR A FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 16 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff James Arthur Casey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the District 20 Court dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and prosecute this 21 action. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On January 6, 2023, the Court issued a Screening Order finding the complaint failed to 24 state any cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 11). The Court afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to file a 25 first amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading; file a notice that he intends to 26 stand on his initial complaint subject to the undersigned recommending the district court dismiss 27 this action for reasons stated in the Screening Order; or file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. 1 Plaintiff that if he “fails to timely respond to this Court Order, i.e., fails to perform any of the 2 three options, the undersigned will recommend that the district court dismiss this case as a 3 sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and for failing to prosecute this action 4 after its determination that the complaint failed to state a claim, which will count as strike under 5 the PLRA.” (Id. at 6-7). The twenty-one-day deadline has lapsed, and Plaintiff has not elected 6 any of the three options or otherwise moved for an extension of time. (See generally docket). 7 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 8 A. Legal Standard 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action 10 when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with other Rules or with a court 11 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 12 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Similarly, the Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule 13 of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of 14 the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the 15 inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power to control 16 their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an 17 action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 18 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, 19 or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 20 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 21 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 22 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 23 to comply with local rules). 24 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 25 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 26 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 27 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1 B. Analysis 2 The undersigned considers each of the above-stated factors and concludes dismissal is 3 warranted in this case. The Court’s Screening Order issued January 6, 2023, determined Plaintiff 4 had failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. 11 at 3-6). Plaintiff was 5 ordered to file a first amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified in the Order, within 6 21 days. (Id. at 6). Alternatively, Plaintiff could file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id.). 7 Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 8 As to the first factor, the expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to be in the public 9 interest, satisfying the first factor. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 10 1999). Turning to the second factor, the Court’s need to efficiently manage its docket cannot be 11 overstated. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and due to unfilled 12 judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, operates under a 13 declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial 14 Emergency in the Eastern District of California. The Court’s time is better spent on its other 15 matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. Because the Court 16 cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds 17 that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 18 Delays inevitably have the inherent risk that evidence will become stale or witnesses’ 19 memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, thereby satisfying the third 20 factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Thus, the third factor, risk of prejudice 21 to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 22 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 23 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff’s inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this 24 action, weighing in favor of dismissal for a risk of prejudice to defendants. 25 Finally, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 26 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 27 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 1 here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th 2 Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Indeed, “trial courts do not have time to waste on multiple failures 3 by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and requirements of our courts.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 4 644 (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of district court’s involuntary dismissal with prejudice of 5 habeas petition where petitioner failed to timely respond to court order and noting “the weight of 6 the docket-managing factor depends upon the size and load of the docket, and those in the best 7 position to know what that is are our beleaguered trial judges.”). Further, the Court has 8 determined that the complaint fails to allege a cognizable claim and thus lacks merit. (See 9 generally Doc. No. 11). 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 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s Screening Order 13 expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to elect one of the options would result in a 14 recommendation for dismissal of this action. (Doc. 11 at 6-7). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 15 warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. And the instant dismissal is a 16 dismissal without prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, thereby 17 addressing the fifth factor. 18 After considering the factors set forth supra and binding case law, the undersigned 19 recommends dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and Local Rule 110. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 21 The Clerk of the Court randomly assign this case to a District Judge. 22 It is further RECOMMENDED: 23 This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders 24 and failure to prosecute. Because the dismissal for failure to prosecute and obey a court order is 25 after the Court screened the complaint and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, this 26 dismissal shall qualify as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 27 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017). 1 NOTICE 2 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 3 | Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 4 | of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 5 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 6 | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffs failure to file objections within the specified time 7 | may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 8 | 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 Dated: _ February 13, 2023 Wiha Th fares Hack 11 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28