(PC) Stobbe v. Gill ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FORREST STOBBE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00656-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 13 v. ACTION TO DISTRICT JUDGE 14 GILL, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 15 Defendants. DISMISS ACTION FOR A FAILURE TO PROSECUTE1 16 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 19 Plaintiff Forrest Stobbe is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. For 20 the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the District Court dismiss this action 21 without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with two court orders and prosecute this action. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On March 22, 2023, the Court issued an order to show cause to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 10). 24 The Court issued the show cause order because Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s February 25 3, 2023 screening order. The March 22, 2023 show cause order directed Plaintiff, within ten (10) 26 days, to either comply with the Court’s previous February 3, 2023 screening order or show cause 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 1 why the undersigned should not recommend that the case be dismissed without prejudice for 2 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. (Id. at 2). The March 22, 2023 show cause order 3 advised Plaintiff that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b) and Local Rule 110, the Court could 4 involuntarily dismiss an action if a litigant fails to prosecute an action or comply with a court 5 order. (Id.). As of the date of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff has not responded 6 to either the March 22, 2023 show cause order or the February 3, 2022 screening order.2 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 27 2 The undersigned notes that, as of the date of these Findings and Recommendations, 21 days has passed since the Court issued its March 22, 2023 show cause order and 62 days has passed since the Court issued its February 3, 2023 screening order. Thus, Plaintiff was afforded more than sufficient time (an additional 1 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 2 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 3 1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 4 B. Analysis 5 The undersigned considers each of the above-stated factors and concludes dismissal is 6 warranted in this case. As to the first factor, the expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to 7 be in the public interest, satisfying the first factor. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 8 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999). Turning to the second factor, the Court’s need to efficiently manage its 9 docket cannot be overstated. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and 10 due to unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, 11 operates under a declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing 12 Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of California. The Court’s time is better spent on its 13 other matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. The Court 14 cannot effectively manage its docket if a plaintiff ceases to litigate his case or respond to the 15 Court’s orders. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of 16 dismissal. 17 Delays inevitably have the inherent risk that evidence will become stale or witnesses’ 18 memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, thereby satisfying the third 19 factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Thus, the third factor, risk of prejudice 20 to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 21 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 22 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff’s inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this 23 action, weighing in favor of dismissal for a risk of prejudice to defendants. 24 Finally, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 25 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 26 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 27 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case 1 Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Indeed, “trial courts do not have time to waste on multiple failures 2 by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and requirements of our courts.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 3 291 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of district court’s 4 involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where petitioner failed to timely respond 5 to court order and noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon the size and 6 load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our beleaguered trial 7 judges.”). 8 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 9 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 10 Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Both the Court’s March 22, 2023 11 order to show cause and the February 3, 2023 screening order expressly warned Plaintiff that his 12 failure to comply with the Court’s orders would result in a recommendation for dismissal of this 13 action. (See Doc. No. 9 at 12, Doc. No. 10 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 14 dismissal could result from his noncompliance. And the instant dismissal is a dismissal without 15 prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, thereby addressing the fifth 16 factor. 17 After considering the factors set forth supra and binding case law, the undersigned 18 recommends dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and Local Rule 110. 19 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 20 The Clerk of the Court randomly assign this case to a District Judge. 21 It is further RECOMMENDED: 22 This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders 23 and failure to prosecute. 24 NOTICE 25 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 27 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 1 | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff's failure to file objections within the specified time 2 | may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 3 | 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 > | Dated: __April 12, 2023 Wihaw. Th. PoareA fackt 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28