(PC) Walker v. Beshara ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY E. WALKER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE1 13 v. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 14 MINA BESHARA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jeffery E. Walker, a current county jail inmate, is proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the District Court 19 dismiss this action because Plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order and prosecute this 20 action despite being provided multiple extensions of time. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 23 while he was a civil detainee in Coalinga State Hospital. (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). The 24 undersigned issued a screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) finding Plaintiff’s 25 Complaint failed to state a claim. (Doc. No. 21). Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended 26 Complaint. (Doc. No. 26, “FAC”). The undersigned screened Plaintiff’s FAC and found that it 27 1 1 also failed to state any cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 53). Plaintiff was given three options to 2 exercise within twenty-one (21) days of the April 4, 2023 Order: (1) file a Second Amended 3 Complaint (“SAC”); (2) file a notice that he intends to stand on his FAC subject to the 4 undersigned recommending the district court dismiss for reasons stated in the April 4, 2023 5 Screening Order; or (3) file a notice to voluntarily dismiss this action, without prejudice, under 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) because no defendant had yet been served. (Id. at 13- 7 14). The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that if he “fails to timely respond to this Court Order or 8 seek an extension of time to comply” the undersigned “will recommend that the district court 9 dismiss this case as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and prosecute 10 this action.” (Id. at 14). The undersigned granted Plaintiff two extensions of time to respond to 11 the April 4, 2023 Screening Order, with a final deadline of July 14, 2023 to deliver his response 12 to correctional officials for mailing. (Doc. Nos. 56, 59). The deadline to file a response has 13 elapsed and Plaintiff has not elected any of the three options or moved for a further extension of 14 time.2 (See generally docket). 15 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 16 Rule 41 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, the Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule 21 of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of 22 the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the 23 inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power to control 24 their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an 25 action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 26 27 2 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the San Francisco Jail. (Doc. No. 38). As of the date of these Findings and Recommendations, 14 days has passed since the date Plaintiff was instructed that he must deliver his response to correctional officials for mailing. Thus, the undersigned waited a sufficient time to 1 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, 2 or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 3 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 4 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 5 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 6 to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider 7 several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need 8 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 9 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson, 10 779 F.2d at 1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 11 The undersigned considers each of the above-stated factors and concludes dismissal is 12 warranted in this case. As to the first factor, the expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to 13 be in the public interest, satisfying the first factor. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 14 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999). 15 Turning to the second factor, the Court’s need to efficiently manage its docket cannot be 16 overstated. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and due to the delay in 17 filling judicial vacancies, which was further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, operates 18 under a declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial 19 Emergency in the Eastern District of California. The Court’s time is better spent on its other 20 matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. The Court cannot 21 effectively manage its docket if a plaintiff ceases to litigate his case. Thus, the Court finds that 22 both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 23 Delays inevitably have the inherent risk that evidence will become stale or witnesses’ 24 memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, thereby satisfying the third 25 factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Thus, the third factor, risk of prejudice 26 to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 27 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 1 weighing in favor of dismissal for a risk of prejudice to defendants. 2 Finally, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 3 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 4 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 5 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case 6 here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th 7 Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Indeed, “trial courts do not have time to waste on multiple failures 8 by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and requirements of our courts.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 9 644 (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of district court’s involuntary dismissal with prejudice of 10 habeas petition where petitioner failed to timely respond to court order and noting “the weight of 11 the docket-managing factor depends upon the size and load of the docket, and those in the best 12 position to know what that is are our beleaguered trial judges.”). Further, the Court’s April 4, 13 2023 screening order found the operative pleading failed to state any cognizable claim. (See Doc. 14 No. 53). 15 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 16 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 17 Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Both the Court’s April 4, 2023 and 18 June 10, 2023 Orders expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order 19 would result in the undersigned recommending the district court to dismiss this action for 20 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and prosecute this case. (See Doc. No. 53 at 14, 21 ¶ 2, 59 at 2, ¶ 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his 22 noncompliance. And the instant dismissal is a dismissal without prejudice, which is a lesser 23 sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, thereby addressing the fifth factor. 24 After considering the factors set forth supra and binding case law, the undersigned 25 recommends dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and Local Rule 110. 26 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 27 This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders 1 NOTICE 2 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 3 | Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 4 | of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 5 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 6 | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffs failure to file objections within the specified time 7 | may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 8 | 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 Dated: _ July 28, 2023 Mile. □□□ foareA Hack 11 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28