Miranda v. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND MIRANDA, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1763 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 13 v. ) PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY ) WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 14 DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY INTERNAL ) REVENUE SERVICE, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) ) 17 18 Raymond Miranda asserts that he did not receive economic impact payments to which he was 19 entitled under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act; the Consolidated 20 Appropriations Act; and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. (See Doc. 1 at 3-4.) Because Plaintiff 21 failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with the Court’s order, the action is DISMISSED 22 without prejudice. 23 I. Relevant Background 24 On December 31, 2021, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in which he asserted 25 the defendants did not issue his economic impact payments (“EIPs”) as authorized, although he 26 submitted a 1040 tax form. (See generally Doc. 1.) 27 The Court reviewed the Complaint to determine the matter of its jurisdiction over the claims. 28 (Doc. 8.) The Court observed that “the CARES Act imposed a clear deadline of December 31, 2020 1 for making any economic impact payments,” and this “deadline expired nearly a year before Plaintiff 2 filed his complaint…” (Id. at 4, citing 26 U.S.C. § 6428(f)(3)(A), Scholl v. Mnuchin (Scholl I), 489 F. 3 Supp. 3d 1008, 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2020), appeal dismissed, 2020 WL 9073361 (9th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020).) 4 In addition, the Court observed that Plaintiff did not allege any details provided in his 1040 tax form, 5 such that the Court could determine filing the forms satisfied the administrative claim requirement. 6 (See id. at 5.) Nevertheless, the Court observed that based upon the filing dates, “the 1040 tax forms 7 Plaintiff submitted could not encompass the economic impact payments paid under the American 8 Rescue Plan Act, which passed on March 11, 2021. (Id., citing 26 U.S.C. § 6428B(a)-(d).) The Court 9 was “unable to find Plaintiff complied with the administrative claim requirements to bring suit under 10 Section 7422(a).” (Id.) Furthermore, the allegations were “insufficient to determine Plaintiff complied 11 with the requirements of Sections 7422(a) and 6532(a).” (Id.) Therefore, the Court concluded it “lacks 12 jurisdiction over any claim for EIPs in the form of a tax refund.” (Id.) 13 On January 6, 2023, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend and served 14 Plaintiff at the address on the record. (Doc. 8 at 6.) Plaintiff was granted 30 days after the date of 15 service to file an amended complaint to address the matter of the Court’s jurisdiction. (Id.) The Court 16 explained Plaintiff had “one opportunity to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable claim and 17 support a conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter.” (Id., emphasis and citation 18 omitted.) Plaintiff was informed the failure to comply with this order my result in dismissal of the 19 action without prejudice for his “failure to prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order.” (Id. at 7, 20 emphasis omitted.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to 21 the Court’s order. 22 II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders 23 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 24 party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 25 and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent 26 power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including 27 dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 28 1986). A court may dismiss an action for a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a 1 court order. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure 2 to comply with an order to file an amended complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 3 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 4 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 5 III. Discussion and Analysis 6 To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court 7 order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 8 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 9 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability 10 of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 11 Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831. 12 A. Public interest and the Court’s docket 13 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 14 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 15 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 16 favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 17 managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will 18 not hold, this case in abeyance based upon the failure to comply with the Court’s order and failure to 19 take action to continue prosecution in a timely manner. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 20 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (a plaintiff has the burden “to move toward… disposition at a reasonable 21 pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics”). Accordingly, these factors weigh in favor of 22 dismissal of the action. 23 B. Prejudice to Defendant 24 To determine whether the defendant suffer prejudice, the Court must “examine whether the 25 plaintiff’s actions impair the … ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of 26 the case.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 769 F.2d 611, 618 (9th 27 Cir. 1985)). Significantly, a presumption of prejudice arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays the 28 prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff has 1 not taken action to further the prosecution of the action, despite being ordered by the Court to file an 2 amended complaint following the dismissal of the initial pleading. Therefore, this factor weighs in 3 favor of dismissal of the action. 4 C. Consideration of less drastic sanctions 5 The Court “abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering 6 the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” United States v. Nat’l Medical 7 Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). However, a court’s warning to a party that the 8 failure to obey could result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. See 9 Malone, 833 F.2d at 133; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “a plaintiff can 10 hardly be surprised” by a sanction of dismissal “in response to willful violation of a pretrial order.” 11 Malone, 833 F.2d at 133. 12 In the order dismissing the complaint, the Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with 13 the Court’s order to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal without prejudice “for failure 14 to prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order.” (Doc. 8 at 6, emphasis omitted). Importantly, the 15 Court need only warn a party once that the matter could be dismissed for failure to comply to satisfy 16 the requirements of Rule 41. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; see also Titus v. Mercedes Benz of North 17 America, 695 F.2d 746, 749 n.6 (3rd Cir. 1982) (identifying a “warning” as an alternative sanction). 18 Accordingly, the Court’s warning satisfied the requirement that lesser sanctions be considered, and 19 this factor weighs in favor of dismissal of the action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 20 F.2d at 1424; Titus, 695 F.2d at 749 n.6. 21 D. Public policy 22 Given Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with the Court’s order, the 23 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. 24 See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133, n.2 (explaining that although “the public policy favoring disposition of 25 cases on their merits… weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). 26 IV. Conclusion and Order 27 Plaintiff ailed to prosecute this action though his failure to file an amended complaint. In 28 addition, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order dated January 6, 2023 (Doc. 8), despite a 1 || warning that terminating sanctions may be imposed. Accordingly, the Court finds the imposition of 2 || terminating sanctions is appropriate. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 3 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 4 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the action. 5 6 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 7\| Dated: _ March 17, 2023 ( Li pA L. warm g TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28