Wilson v. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER JOHN WILSON, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1051 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH ) PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 13 v. ) PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY ) WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 14 DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY INTERNAL ) REVENUE SERVICE, ) (Doc. 19) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) ) 17 18 Christopher John Wilson asserts he did not receive economic impact payments to which he was 19 entitled under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. (See Doc. 19.) Because 20 Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with the Court’s order, the action is 21 DISMISSED with prejudice. 22 I. Relevant Background 23 Wilson initiated this action by filing a complaint on July 6, 2021. (Doc. 1.) Wilson alleged he 24 filed a Form 1040 for his individual income tax return “in February 2021 and received no return.” (Id.) 25 He asserted he “then wrote several letters to the IRS and none were responded to,” after which he 26 “again filed another Form 1040 in March 2021 claiming the recovery Rebate Credit.” (Id.) According 27 to Wilson, he did not receive the refund payments of $1,200.00; $600.00; or $1,400.00. (Id.) Wilson 28 alleged he again “wrote letters to the IRS and still received no response.” (Id.) As a result, Wilson 1 asserted the IRS is “denying ... his rightful Economic Impact Payments seemingly because Plaintiff is 2 currently incarcerated.” (Id.) Thus, Wilson requested the IRS provide “a check for $3,200.00” “and or 3 the remaining unissued [r]efunds.” (Id. at 4.) 4 The Government filed a motion to dismiss complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 5 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 19.) On May 2, 2022, the Court determined 6 Wilson was unable to state a cognizable claim—and the Court was unable to grant the requested 7 relief—under the CARES Act. (Doc. 21 at 5-6.) In addition, the allegations were insufficient to 8 determine whether Wilson complied with the administrative claim requirements for a tax refund. (Id. 9 at 6-8.) Thus, the Court was unable to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter. (Id. at 8.) 10 The Court observed: “Amendment would allow Wilson to address the contents of his submissions to 11 the IRS, and allow the Court to clarify whether he complied with the jurisdictional requirements.” 12 (Id.) Therefore, the Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and Wilson was directed “file any 13 First Amended Complaint with 45 days of the date of service…” (Id. at 9.) Wilson was also 14 “informed that failure to file an amended complaint will result in the action being dismissed without 15 prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order.” (Id., emphasis omitted.) 16 The Court served Wilson at the address on record on May 2, 2022. However, Wilson filed a 17 notice of change of address two days later. (Doc. 22.) The Clerk of Court served the order to the new 18 address on May 5, 2022. (See Docket; see also Doc. 23.) Consequently, based upon the most recent 19 date of service, any amended complaint was due no later than June 20, 2022. To date, Wilson has not 20 filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 21 II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders 22 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 23 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 24 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent 25 power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including 26 dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 27 1986). A court may dismiss an action for a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a 28 court order. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure 1 to comply with an order to file an amended complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 2 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 3 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 4 III. Discussion and Analysis 5 To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court 6 order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 7 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 8 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability 9 of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 10 Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831. 11 A. Public interest and the Court’s docket 12 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 13 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 14 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 15 favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 16 managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will 17 not hold, this case in abeyance based upon the failure to comply with the Court’s order and failure to 18 take action to continue prosecution in a timely manner. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 19 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (a plaintiff has the burden “to move toward… disposition at a reasonable 20 pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics”). Accordingly, these factors weigh in favor of 21 dismissal of the action. 22 B. Prejudice to Defendant 23 To determine whether the defendant suffer prejudice, the Court must “examine whether the 24 plaintiff’s actions impair the … ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of 25 the case.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 769 F.2d 611, 618 (9th 26 Cir. 1985)). Significantly, a presumption of prejudiced arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays the 27 prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Wilson has not 28 taken action to further the prosecution of the action, despite being ordered by the Court to file an 1 amended complaint following the dismissal of the initial pleading. Therefore, this factor weighs in 2 favor of dismissal of the action. 3 C. Consideration of less drastic sanctions 4 The Court “abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering 5 the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” United States v. Nat’l Medical 6 Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). However, a court’s warning to a party that the 7 failure to obey could result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. See 8 Malone, 833 F.2d at 133; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “a plaintiff can 9 hardly be surprised” by a sanction of dismissal “in response to willful violation of a pretrial order.” 10 Malone, 833 F.2d at 133. 11 In the order addressing the motion to dismiss, the Court warned Wilson that “failure to file an 12 amended complaint will result in the action being dismissed without prejudice for failure to 13 prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order.” (Doc. 21 at 9, emphasis in original).” Importantly, 14 the Court need only warn a party once that the matter could be dismissed for failure to comply to satisfy 15 the requirements of Rule 41. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; see also Titus v. Mercedes Benz of North 16 America, 695 F.2d 746, 749 n.6 (3rd Cir. 1982) (identifying a “warning” as an alternative sanction). 17 Accordingly, the warning satisfied the requirement that the Court consider lesser sanctions, and this 18 factor weighs in favor of dismissal of the action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 19 1424; Titus, 695 F.2d at 749 n.6. 20 D. Public policy 21 Given Wilson’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with the Court’s order, the 22 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. 23 See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133, n.2 (explaining that although “the public policy favoring disposition of 24 cases on their merits… weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). 25 IV. Conclusion and Order 26 Wilson failed to prosecute this action though his failure to file an amended complaint. In 27 addition, Wilson failed to comply with the Court’s order dated May 2, 2022 (Doc. 9), despite a warning 28 that terminating sanctions may be imposed. 1 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 3 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the action. 4 5 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 6, 2022 Charis [Tourn 7 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28