(PC) Spengler v. CDCR ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL PATRICK SPENGLER, JR., No. 1:24-cv-00817-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. TO THIS ACTION 14 CDCR, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THE 15 Defendants. ACTION 16 (ECF No. 15) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed the instant action on June 3, 2024, in the United States District Court for the 20 Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The action was transferred to this Court on 21 July 16, 2024. 22 On July 18, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the $450.00 filing fee or submit the 23 proper application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner within 45 days. (ECF No. 9.) 24 Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order. Therefore, on September 18, 2024, the Court 25 issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff 26 has failed to file a response to the order to show cause and the time to do so has passed. 27 Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted. 28 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure ... of a party to comply with these Rules or with 4 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions ... 5 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 6 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 7 appropriate, ... dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court 8 may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to 9 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 10 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 11 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 12 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 13 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 14 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) 15 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 v. Duncan, 779 18 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 19 Here, Plaintiff’s completed application to proceed in forma pauperis (or payment of the 20 filing fee) is overdue and he has failed to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court cannot 21 effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both 22 the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 23 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 24 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 25 Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against 26 dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 27 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility 28 it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 1 direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 2 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 3 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 4 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 5 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s July 18, 2024 order expressly 6 warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order to file completed application to 7 proceed in forma pauperis (or to pay the filing fee for this action) “will result in dismissal of this 8 action.” (ECF No. 9 at 1.) The Court’s order to show cause further warned Plaintiff that his 9 failure to file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis would result in a 10 recommendation to dismiss the action. (ECF No. 15.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 11 dismissal could result from his noncompliance. 12 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that 13 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 14 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff has failed to file a completed application 15 to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing for this action. Thus, Plaintiff failure to pay the fee 16 or proceed in forma pauperis makes monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of 17 evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case. 18 II. 19 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 20 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly 21 assign a District Judge to this action. 22 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 23 prejudice, for failure to obey Court orders and for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action. 24 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 26 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 27 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 1 | specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings” 2 | on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 3 | 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 6 | Dated: _ October 15, 2024 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28