(PC) Chavez v. Kings County ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PABLO CHAVEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00503-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS1 14 KINGS COUNTY, KINGS COUNTY JAIL, SHRIBER, Classification Officer, FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 15 and PITNUM, Classification Officer ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN A 16 Defendants. DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review. As more fully set forth below, 20 the undersigned recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to 21 prosecute this action and timely comply with the Court’s orders. 22 I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff Chavez, a former inmate, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his initial 24 civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1, 4, “Complaint”). The Complaint 25 alleges Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights when he was placed in 26 administrative segregation due to an improper classification status. (Id. 1 at 3). On July 27, 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 2022, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and clarified that because Plaintiff was a 2 pretrial detainee, and not a convicted prisoner, the Fourteenth Amendment, instead of the Eighth 3 Amendment, applied. (Doc. No. 12 at 4). However, despite construing Plaintiff’s Complaint 4 under the Fourteenth Amendment, the undersigned found it failed to state a claim. (Id. at 4-6). 5 Additionally, the relief sought by Plaintiff was either moot or precluded by statute. (Id. at 6). As 6 a result, Plaintiff was given 21-days within which to exercise one of the following options: (1) file 7 an amended complaint; (2) file a notice that he intends to stand on his Complaint subject to the 8 undersigned recommending the district court dismiss for reasons stated in the July 27, 2022 9 Screening Order; or (3) file a notice to voluntarily dismiss this action, without prejudice, under 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). (Id. at 7-8). Plaintiff was also warned that a failure to 11 comply with the July 27, 2022 Order, or seek an extension of time to comply, would result in the 12 undersigned recommending to the district court to dismiss this action for a failure to comply with 13 a court order and a failure to prosecute. (Id. at 8). The 21-day deadline has lapsed, and Plaintiff 14 has not elected any of the three options or otherwise moved for an extension of time. (See 15 generally docket). 16 II. APPLICABLE LAW 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action 18 when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations 20 omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 21 (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss 22 under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110 similarly 23 permits the court to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with any order of the court. 24 Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but it “is incumbent upon the Court to manage its 25 docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 26 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Before dismissing an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, the court 27 must consider: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 28 manage a docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendant; (4) public policy favoring disposition on 1 the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d 2 at 889 (noting that these five factors “must” be analyzed before a Rule 41 involuntary dismissal) 3 (emphasis added); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (reviewing 4 five factors and independently reviewing the record because district court did not make finding as 5 to each factor); but see Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (listing 6 the same five factors, but noting the court need not make explicit findings as to each) (emphasis 7 added); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of pro se § 8 1983 action when plaintiff did not amend caption to remove “et al” as the court directed and 9 reiterating that an explicit finding of each factor is not required by the district court). 10 III. ANALYSIS 11 The undersigned considers each of the above-stated factors and concludes dismissing this 12 case is warranted. The expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to be in the public interest, 13 satisfying the first factor. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990–91 (9th Cir. 1999). 14 Turning to the second factor, the Court’s need to efficiently manage its docket cannot be 15 overstated. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and due to unfilled 16 judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, operates under a 17 declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial 18 Emergency in the Eastern District of California. The Court’s time is better spent on its other 19 matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. Indeed, “trial 20 courts do not have time to waste on multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and 21 requirements of our courts.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 644 (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of 22 district court’s involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where petitioner failed to 23 timely respond to court order and noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon 24 the size and load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our 25 beleaguered trial judges.”). Delays have the inevitable and inherent risk that evidence will 26 become stale or witnesses' memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, 27 thereby satisfying the third factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Attempting a 28 less drastic action, such as allowing Chavez an extension to elect one of the three options, would 1 | be futile because Chavez has been provided ample time to, at the minimum, notify the court 2 | which of the three options from the July 27, 2022 Screening Order he would elect and he has 3 | failed to do even the bare minimum. (See docket). Finally, the instant dismissal is a dismissal 4 | without prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, thereby addressing 5 | the fifth factor. 6 Considering these factors and those set forth supra, as well as binding case law, the 7 | undersigned recommends dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local 8 | Rule 110. 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 10 The Clerk shall assign a District Judge to this case. 11 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 12 This case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action 13 | after being directed to file an amended complaint. 14 NOTICE TO PARTIES 15 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 16 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 17 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 18 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 19 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 20 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 21 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 23 Dated: _ September 6, 2022 oe Zh. Sareh Back 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28