(PC) Ignacio Prado v. Fortune ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IGNACIO PRADO, Case No. 1:21-cv-00459-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 14 FORTUNE, DIAZ, FRAUENHEIM, DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE1 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 Plaintiff Ignacio Prado is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the District 20 Court dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and 21 prosecute this action. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 24 alleging an Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claim stemming from the delay in 25 providing him prescription bifocals. (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). On June 9, 2023, pursuant to 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A the Court issued a screening order finding the Complaint, as pled, failed to state 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 an official capacity claim against any of the named Defendants, failed to allege facts to establish 2 supervisor liability against Defendants Diaz and Frauenheim, and failed to state a medical 3 deliberate indifference claim. (See generally Doc. No. 12). The Court afforded Plaintiff three 4 options: (1) file an amended complaint; (2) file a notice that he intends to stand on his initial 5 complaint subject to the undersigned recommending the district court dismiss for reasons stated in 6 the June 9, 2023 Screening Order; or (3) file a notice to voluntarily dismiss this action, without 7 prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) because no defendant had yet been 8 served. (Id. at 8-9). The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that if he “fails to timely respond to 9 this Court Order or seek an extension of time to comply” the undersigned “will recommend that 10 the district court dismiss this case as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order 11 and prosecute this action.” (Id. at 10, ¶ 2). As of the date of this of this Findings and 12 Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to exercise any of the three options from the Court’s 13 Screening Order, or request an extension of time to comply, and the time to do so has expired.2 14 See docket. 15 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 16 A. Legal Standard 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action 18 when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with other Rules or with a court 19 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 20 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Similarly, this Court’s Local Rules, which correspond with 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … 22 any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … 23 within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power 24 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 25 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 26 2 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. (Doc. No. 12 at 9, ¶ 1). The undersigned allotted 15 days from the July 10, 2023, deadline to account for mailing before issuing 28 these Findings and Recommendations. 1 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 2 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 3 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. 4 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 5 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 6 prosecute and to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court 7 must consider the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 8 litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 9 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 10 drastic sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 11 1988). 12 B. Analysis 13 After considering each of the above-stated factors, the undersigned concludes dismissal 14 without prejudice is warranted in this case. As to the first factor, the expeditious resolution of 15 litigation is deemed to be in the public interest, satisfying the first factor. Yourish v. California 16 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999). 17 Turning to the second factor, this Court’s need to efficiently manage its docket cannot be 18 overstated. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and due to the delay in 19 filling judicial vacancies, which was further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, operates 20 under a declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial 21 Emergency in the Eastern District of California. This Court’s time is better spent on its other 22 matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. The Court cannot 23 effectively manage its docket when a litigant ceases to litigate his/her case or respond to a court 24 order. Thus, the Court finds that the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 25 Delays inevitably have the inherent risk that evidence will become stale or witnesses’ 26 memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, thereby satisfying the third 27 factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Thus, the third factor—risk of prejudice 28 to defendant—weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 1 unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 2 1976). Because Plaintiff’s inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action, 3 the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 4 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors the 5 disposition of cases on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case 7 toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which is 8 the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 9 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Indeed, “trial courts do not have time to waste on 10 multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and requirements of our courts.” 11 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of 12 district court’s involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where petitioner failed to 13 timely respond to court order and noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon 14 the size and load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our 15 beleaguered trial judges.”). Further, as set forth in the Screening Order, the Court already 16 determined that the Complaint, as pled, failed to state a claim, so this factor does not weigh in 17 favor of the Plaintiff. 18 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 19 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 20 Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s June 9, 2023 Order 21 expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a 22 recommendation for dismissal of this action. (Doc. 12 at 10). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 23 warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. And the instant dismissal is a 24 dismissal without prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, thereby 25 satisfying the fifth factor. 26 After considering the factors set forth supra and binding case law, the undersigned 27 recommends dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rule 110. 28 //// ] Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 2 The Clerk of the Court randomly assign this case to a District Judge. 3 It is further RECOMMENDED: 4 This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to obey court orders 5 || and failure to prosecute. 6 NOTICE 7 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 8 | Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 9 || of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections 10 || with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 11 || and Recommendations.” A party’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 12 || waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 13 || Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 ' | Dated: __Iuly 25, 2023 Wiha. Mh. fareh Zaskth 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28