(PC) Fernandes v. Yanez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY FERNANDES, Case No. 1:21-cv-01487-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 v. 14-DAY DEADLINE 14 YANEZ, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Jerry Fernandes is a state prisoner in this civil rights action. For the reasons set 18 forth below, the undersigned recommends the District Court dismiss this action without prejudice 19 for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and prosecute this action. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 22 1983. (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). On June 9, 2023, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s 23 Complaint and found, as pled, that it failed to state a claim. (Doc. No. 11, “Screening Order”). 24 The Court afforded Plaintiff three options: (1) file an amended complaint, (2) file a notice that he 25 intends to stand on his Complaint, or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of 26 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). (Id. at 8-9). The Court further advised Plaintiff that, if he failed to 27 timely exercise one of the three options or request an extension of time to comply with the 28 Screening Order, the undersigned would recommend the district court dismiss this action for his 1 failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. (Id. at 9). As of the date of this of 2 this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to exercise any of the three options from 3 the Court’s June 9, 2023, Screening Order, or request an extension of time to comply, and the 4 time to do so has expired.1 See docket. 5 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 6 A. Legal Standard 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action 8 when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with other Rules or with a court 9 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 10 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Similarly, this Court’s Local Rules, which correspond with 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … 12 any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … 13 within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power 14 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 15 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 16 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 17 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 18 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. 19 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 20 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 21 prosecute and to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court 22 must consider the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 23 litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 24 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 25 drastic sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 26 1 The Court advised Plaintiff that after electing his option, he must deliver either his amended complaint or 27 appropriate notice to correctional officials for mailing no later than July 10, 2023. The undersigned allotted 15 days from the July 10, 2023, deadline to account for mailing before issuing these Findings and 28 Recommendations. 1 1988). 2 B. Analysis 3 After considering each of the above-stated factors, the undersigned concludes dismissal 4 without prejudice is warranted in this case. As to the first factor, the expeditious resolution of 5 litigation is deemed to be in the public interest, satisfying the first factor. Yourish v. California 6 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999). 7 Turning to the second factor, this Court’s need to efficiently manage its docket cannot be 8 overstated. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and due to the delay in 9 filling judicial vacancies, which was further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, operates 10 under a declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial 11 Emergency in the Eastern District of California. This Court’s time is better spent on its other 12 matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. The Court cannot 13 effectively manage its docket when a litigant ceases to litigate his/her case or respond to a court 14 order. Thus, the Court finds that the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 15 Delays inevitably have the inherent risk that evidence will become stale or witnesses’ 16 memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, thereby satisfying the third 17 factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Thus, the third factor—risk of prejudice 18 to defendant—weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 19 unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 20 1976). Because Plaintiff’s inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action, 21 the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 22 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors the 23 disposition of cases on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). 24 However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case 25 toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which is 26 the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 27 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Indeed, “trial courts do not have time to waste on 28 multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and requirements of our courts.” 1 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of 2 district court’s involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where petitioner failed to 3 timely respond to court order and noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon 4 the size and load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our 5 beleaguered trial judges.”). Further, as set forth in the June 9, 2023, Screening Order, the Court 6 already determined that the Complaint, as pled, failed to state a claim, so this factor does not 7 weigh in favor of the Plaintiff. (See Doc. No. 11). 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. The Court’s June 9, 2023, screening 11 order expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a 12 recommendation for dismissal of this action. (Doc. 11 at 9). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 13 warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. And the instant dismissal is a 14 dismissal without prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, thereby 15 satisfying the fifth factor. 16 After considering the factors set forth supra and binding case law, the undersigned 17 recommends dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rule 110. 18 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 19 This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders 20 and failure to prosecute. 21 //// 22 //// 23 //// 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, a party may file written 28 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 1 | Findings and Recommendations.” A party’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: _ July 25,2023 Mile. □□□ foareA Hack 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