(PC) Rodriguez v. Diaz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-01373-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 14 RALPH DIAZ, Secretary of California DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE ACTION1 Department of Corrections, et al., 15 14-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Pedro Rodriguez is a former state prisoner2 proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis (Doc. Nos. 1, 5) in this civil rights action. For the reasons set forth below, the 19 undersigned recommends the District Court dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s 20 failure to prosecute this action. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Rodriguez, a former state prisoner, is proceeding pro se on his initial civil rights 23 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging one claim against all six Defendants for violating 24 Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment for not preventing the spread of COVID-19 at 25 Valley State Prison. (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). On March 23, 2023, the Court issued a 26 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 2 According to the change of address Plaintiff filed in his other action (case no. 1:20-cv-01044-ADAHBK) 1 screening order finding the Complaint, which was 66 pages in length and contained 52 pages of 2 exhibits, failed to comply with Rule 8; that Plaintiff lacked standing because he did not suffer any 3 injury but sought to enjoin the perceived threat of a future harm; and the relief sought was not 4 available. (See generally Doc. 11). Plaintiff was given three options to exercise within twenty- 5 one (21) days of the March 23, 2023 Order: (1) file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”); (2) file 6 a notice that he intends to stand on his initial complaint subject to the undersigned recommending 7 the district court dismiss for reasons stated in the March 23, 2023 Screening Order; or (3) file a 8 notice to voluntarily dismiss this action, without prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 41(a)(1) because no defendant had yet been served. (Id. at 8, ¶ 1). The Court expressly warned 10 Plaintiff that if he “fails to timely respond to this Court Order or seek an extension of time to 11 comply” the undersigned “will recommend that the district court dismiss this case as a sanction 12 for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and prosecute this action.” (Id. at 9, ¶ 2). The 13 twenty-one (21) day deadline has lapsed and Plaintiff has not elected any of the three options or 14 otherwise moved for an extension of time.3 (See generally 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, 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 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, 27 3 The undersigned further notes that as of the date of these Findings and Recommendations 42 days has 1 or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 2 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 3 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 4 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 5 to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider 6 several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need 7 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 8 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson, 9 779 F.2d at 1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 B. Analysis 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). Turning to the second factor, the Court’s need to efficiently manage its 15 docket cannot be overstated. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and 16 due to unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, 17 operates under a declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing 18 Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of California. The Court’s time is better spent on its 19 other matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. The Court 20 cannot effectively manage its docket if a plaintiff ceases to litigate his case. Thus, the Court finds 21 that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 22 Delays inevitably have the inherent risk that evidence will become stale or witnesses’ 23 memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, thereby satisfying the third 24 factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Thus, the third factor, risk of prejudice 25 to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 26 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 27 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff’s inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this 1 Finally, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 2 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 3 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 4 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case 5 here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th 6 Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Indeed, “trial courts do not have time to waste on multiple failures 7 by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and requirements of our courts.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 8 291 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of district court’s 9 involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where petitioner failed to timely respond 10 to court order and noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon the size and 11 load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our beleaguered trial 12 judges.”). Notably, the Court has already screened the Complaint and found it failed to state a 13 meritorious claim as plead. 14 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 15 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 16 Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s March 23, 2023 17 Screening Order expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order 18 would result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 19 warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. And the instant dismissal is a 20 dismissal without prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, thereby 21 addressing the fifth factor. 22 After considering the factors set forth supra and binding case law, the undersigned 23 recommends dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and Local Rule 110. 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 25 The Clerk of the Court randomly assign this case to a District Judge. 26 It is further RECOMMENDED: 27 This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order 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: _ May 4, 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