(PC) Lee v. Shirley ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUN LEE, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00507 SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 v. DISMISS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 14 HEATHER SHIRLEY, et al., 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 15 Defendants. Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Shaun Lee, along with 17 other state prisoners, was originally a plaintiff in a civil 20 rights action entitled Thomas, et al., v. Shirley, et al. and assigned case number 1:23-cv-00470- 21 BAM (PC). 22 On April 5, 2023, Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued an Order To Sever 23 Action, Order to Strike Unsigned Complaint, and Order to Submit Signed Complaints and 24 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis or Pay Filing Fee in the Thomas v. Shirley action. (See 25 Doc. 1.) Plaintiff’s claims were severed from those of plaintiff Thomas and the other 17 state 26 prisoners. (Id. at 3.) The Clerk of the Court was directed to open a separate civil action for 27 Plaintiff’s claims. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff was also ordered to submit a completed and signed 1 days of the date of service of the order. (Id. at 4.) Finally, Plaintiff was ordered to file a signed 2 complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within 45 days of the date of service of the order. 3 (Id.) 4 On that same date, this action was opened and assigned case number 1:23-cv-507-SKO 5 and new case documents issued accordingly. (See Docket & Doc. 2.) 6 More than 45 days have passed since the Court issued its Order striking the unsigned 7 complaint, and ordering Plaintiff to file a signed complaint in this action and to submit a 8 completed and signed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has failed to do so. 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 A. Legal Standards 11 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 12 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 13 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 14 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 15 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 16 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 17 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 18 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 19 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 20 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 21 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 22 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 23 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 24 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 25 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 26 1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 27 B. Analysis 1 pauperis, and has not filed a signed complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, as directed in the 2 Court’s April 5, 2023, order. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases 3 litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors—the public’s 4 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket—weigh 5 in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 6 The third factor weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 7 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 8 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, the Court’s April 5, 2023 order provided Plaintiff with 45 days within 9 which to file a signed complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal in this action and to submit an 10 application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders 11 and his inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action resulting in a 12 presumption of injury. Therefore, the third factor—a risk of prejudice to defendants—also weighs 13 in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 14 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 15 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 16 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 17 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re 18 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) 19 (citation omitted). By failing to file a signed complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, or to 20 submit a signed and completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is not moving 21 this case forward and is impeding its progress. Thus, the fourth factor—the public policy favoring 22 disposition of cases on their merits—weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 23 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 24 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 25 Here, the Court’s April 5, 2023 order warned: “A Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order 26 will result in dismissal of that Plaintiff’s individual action.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) Additionally, in the 27 Court’s First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case, issued that same 1 this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), and the Local Rules of the 2 United States District Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”), as modified by this 3 Order. Failure to so comply will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include 4 dismissal of the case. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (Doc. 2 at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff had 5 adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Therefore, the fifth 6 factor—the availability of less drastic sanctions—also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 7 F.2d at 1440. 8 In sum, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders, and in doing so, has failed 9 to prosecute this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so intentionally or mistakenly is 10 inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and to prosecute 11 this action. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen 12 to ignore. 13 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action. 15 For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be 16 DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 18 this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 19 Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 20 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 21 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 22 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 23 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: May 30, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27