Debbs v. Dignity Health Hospital ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EURAL DEBBS, SR., Case No. 1:22-cv-00351-ADA-HBK 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE ACTION1 14 DIGNITY HEALTH HOSPITAL, ET 14-DAY DEADLINE AL., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Eural Debbs Sr. is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action filed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983. (Doc. No. 1 “Complaint”). For the reasons set forth 20 below, the undersigned recommends the District Court dismiss this action without prejudice for 21 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff is proceeding on his initial civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 24 alleging discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id.). On March 15, 2023, the 25 Court issued a screening order finding the Complaint failed to state any federal claim. (See 26 generally Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff was given three options to exercise within twenty-one (21) days 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 1 from service of the March 15, 2023 Order: (1) file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”); (2) file a 2 notice that he intends to stand on his initial complaint subject to the undersigned recommending 3 the district court dismiss for reasons stated in the March 15, 2023 Screening Order; or (3) file a 4 notice to voluntarily dismiss this action, without prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 41(a)(1) because no defendant had yet been served. (Id. at 6, ¶ 1). The Court expressly warned 6 Plaintiff that if he “fails to timely respond to this Court Order or seek an extension of time to 7 comply” the undersigned “will recommend that the district court dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s 8 failure to comply with a court order and prosecute this action.” (Id., ¶ 2). The twenty-one (21) 9 day deadline has lapsed and Plaintiff has not elected any of the three options or otherwise moved 10 for an extension of time.2 (See generally docket). 11 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 12 A. Legal Standard 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action 14 when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with other Rules or with a court 15 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 16 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Similarly, the Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule 17 of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of 18 the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the 19 inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power to control 20 their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an 21 action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 22 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, 23 or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 24 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 25 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 26 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 27 2 Plaintiff is not incarcerated and is not entitled to the mailbox rule. Nonetheless, the undersigned afforded 1 to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must 2 consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 3 Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 4 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 5 sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 B. Analysis 7 The undersigned considers each of the above-stated factors and concludes dismissal is 8 warranted in this case. As to the first factor, the expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to 9 be in the public interest, satisfying the first factor. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 10 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999). Turning to the second factor, the Court’s need to efficiently manage its 11 docket cannot be overstated. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and 12 due to unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, 13 operates under a declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing 14 Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of California. The Court’s time is better spent on its 15 other matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. The Court 16 cannot effectively manage its docket if a plaintiff ceases to litigate 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 v. Galaza, 4 291 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of district court’s 5 involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where petitioner failed to timely respond 6 to court order and noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon the size and 7 load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our beleaguered trial 8 judges.”). Notably, the Court has already screened the Complaint and found it failed to state a 9 meritorious claim as plead. 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 March 15, 2023 13 Screening Order expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order 14 would result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action. 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 further RECOMMENDED: 21 This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order 22 and/or failure to prosecute this action. 23 NOTICE 24 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 25 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 26 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 27 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 1 | may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2 | 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 “| Dated: April 17.2023 law □□□ fareh fackt 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28