(PC) Sanford v. Newsom ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBERT L. SANFORD, Case No. 1:22-cv-01100-ADA-CDB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 v. TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND FAILURE TO 13 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., OBEY A COURT ORDER 14 Defendants. (Docs. 21, 22) 15 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Robert L. Sanford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed an unsigned fourth 19 amended complaint1 alleging he contracted COVID-19 due to Defendants’ deliberate 20 indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff’s health in violation of the Eighth 21 Amendment. (Doc. 20.) The Court screened the fourth amended complaint and found it fails to 22 state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against any defendant. (Doc. 22.) The Court granted 23 Plaintiff leave to file a fifth amended complaint within twenty-one days and advised: “If 24 Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will recommend dismissal of this action 25 for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 1–2.) 26 27 1 Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court for Kern County. Defendants removed the action to this Court on the third amended complaint. (Doc. 1.) Therefore, the fourth amended complaint was the 1 More than twenty-one days have passed, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s 2 order by filing a fifth amended complaint. A pro se plaintiff must comply with orders of the 3 Court. See L.R. 183. Failure to comply with a court order may be grounds for imposition of 4 sanctions, including dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. L.R. 5 110, 183. The district court’s inherent power to control its docket also allows the court to 6 impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los 7 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986); see L.R. 110. 8 In considering whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order, the 9 Court must weigh the following factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 10 litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 11 (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of 12 cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. 13 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 14 The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 15 litigation always favors dismissal.” Id. (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 16 (9th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff’s failure to advance and prosecute this case by filing a fifth amended 17 complaint is delaying resolution of this litigation. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of 18 dismissal. 19 The Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of dismissal. “The trial judge 20 is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with docket 21 management and the public interest . . . . It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket 22 without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Id. Plaintiff’s failure to amend his 23 fourth amended complaint, despite being ordered to do so by the Court, is delaying this case and 24 interfering with docket management. Therefore, the second factor also weighs in favor of 25 dismissal. 26 With respect to the third factor, the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not 27 sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 1 evidence will become stale.” Id. at 643. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and to 2 prosecute this case is causing a delay. The third factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. 3 As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 4 available to the Court that would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 5 Court from further, unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Given Plaintiff’s 6 incarceration and his indigency, monetary sanctions are of little use. Moreover, at the stage of 7 these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. The Ninth Circuit has 8 explained that “[a] district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 9 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 10 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). “A district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 11 the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ 12 requirement.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 13 The fifth factor, the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits, 14 ordinarily weighs against dismissal. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 15 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006). However, because Plaintiff has disregarded the Court’s order, this 16 factor does not weigh completely against dismissal. 17 After weighing these factors, the Court finds that dismissal is appropriate. Additionally, 18 Plaintiff appears to have abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or 19 mistakenly is inconsequential. Plaintiff bears the responsibility to comply with the Court’s 20 orders. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff no longer 21 wishes to prosecute. 22 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: 23 1. The Court DISMISS this action WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a 24 claim upon which relief can be granted and failure to obey a court order; and 25 2. Direct the Clerk of Court to close the case. 26 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 27 Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 1 | written objections with the Court. The document should be titled, “Objections to Magistrate 2 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 3 | within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 4 | 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 5 | 1991)). 6 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: _ September 25, 2023 | ) Ww Me D R~ 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28