(PC) Dillingham v. Garcia ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY DILLINGHAM, 1:19-cv-00461-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE, WITH PREJUDICE, 13 vs. FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 J. GARCIA,ANYTIME! et al., (ECF No. 10.) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Jerry Dillingham (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 23 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff 24 filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) 25 On November 9, 2021, Defendant Garcia filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF 26 No. 74.) Doc. 71.) Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition 27 to the motion within twenty-one days but failed to do so.. Local Rule 230(l). On January 27, 28 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an opposition, and on January 28, 2022, 1 the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time. (ECF Nos. 79, 80.) On February 28, 2 2022, Plaintiff filed a second motion for an extension of time, and on March 7, 2022, the Court 3 granted Plaintiff another thirty-day extension. (ECF Nos. 81, 82.) The most recent thirty-day 4 deadline has expired and Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded to the 5 Court’s order. Therefore, it will be recommended that this case be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s 6 failure to comply with the Court’s order and failure to prosecute. 7 In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set 8 forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in 9 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 10 prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 11 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 12 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 13 “‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’” 14 id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the 15 action has been pending since April 9, 2019. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s order 16 may reflect Plaintiff’s disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot 17 continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not amend his complaint. 18 Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 19 Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 20 and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently 21 increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it 22 is Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment that is causing 23 delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal. Risk of prejudice to Defendant 24 also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 25 unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 26 1976). 27 As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 28 available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 1 Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is a former prisoner 2 proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given 3 the stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. The 4 dismissal being considered in this case is with prejudice, which is the harshest possible sanction. 5 The Court finds this sanction appropriate in light of the fact that more than five months have 6 passed since Defendant filed the motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff has yet to file an 7 opposition. 8 Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always 9 weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643. 10 The Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 11 1. This action be dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the 12 Court’s order issued on March 7, 2022, and failure to prosecute; and 13 2. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 16 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 17 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 20 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 21 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: April 29, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28