(PC) Allen v. California Department of State Hospitals ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID ALLEN, 1:23-cv-00911-SKO 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 v. TO DISMISS THIS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY 13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO STATE HOSPITALS, et al., PROSECUTE 14 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 15 Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 16 17 18 Plaintiff David Allen is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 21 On October 3, 2023, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 6.) The Court found 22 Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Id. at 8-10.) 23 Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the 24 Court’s order. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff was ordered to either file a first amended complaint or a notice 25 of voluntary dismissal within 21 days of the date of service of the order. (Id. at 10-11.) Plaintiff 26 has failed to file either a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal and the time 27 for doing so has now passed. 28 // 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A. Legal Standards 3 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 4 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 5 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 6 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 7 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 8 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 9 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 10 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 11 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 12 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 13 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 14 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 15 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 16 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 17 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 18 1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 19 B. Analysis 20 Plaintiff has failed to file either a first amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal 21 as directed in the screening order. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff 22 ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors—the public’s 23 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket—weigh 24 in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 25 The third factor 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, 524 27 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, the Court’s October 3, 2023, screening order provided Plaintiff with 21 28 days within which to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. Although 1 more than 21 days have passed, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order. His inaction 2 amounts to an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action resulting in a presumption of injury. 3 Therefore, the third factor—a risk of prejudice to defendants—also weighs in favor of dismissal. 4 Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 5 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 6 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 7 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 8 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re 9 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) 10 (citation omitted). By failing to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, or 11 otherwise contact the Court, Plaintiff is not moving this case forward and is impeding its 12 progress. Thus, the fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 13 merits—weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 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 Here, the Court’s screening order warned: “If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the 17 Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a 18 court order and for failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 6 at 11.) In the Court’s First Informational 19 Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case, issued June 16, 2023, Plaintiff was also 20 advised as follows: “In litigating this action, the parties must comply with this Order, the Federal 21 Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), and the Local Rules of the United States District 22 Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”), as modified by this Order. Failure to so 23 comply will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case. 24 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (Doc. 3 at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 25 dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Therefore, the fifth factor—the availability of less 26 drastic sanctions—also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 27 In sum, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders, and in doing so, has failed 28 to prosecute this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so intentionally or mistakenly is 1 inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and to prosecute 2 this action. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen 3 to ignore. 4 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action. 6 For the reasons given above, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 7 without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 8 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 9 this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 10 Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 11 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 12 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 13 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 14 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: November 2, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28