dismissal for failure to comply with a court order
How later courts described this case
- dismissal for failure to comply with a court order
- dismissal for failure to prosecute and 19 to comply with local rules
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JOSE G. VILLALTA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01457-HBK (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS ACTION FOR A FAILURE TO
14 B. CATES, Warden; CDCR PAROLE OBEY COURT ORDER AND PROSECUTE
BOARD, Medical Covid-19; BAKER, ACTION
15 CDCR Records; and N. GONZALEZ,
Counselor 14-DAY DEADLINE
16
Defendants.
17
18 Plaintiff Jose Villalta is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. For
19 the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the District Court dismiss this action for
20 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and prosecute this action.
21 BACKGROUND
22 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
23 (Doc. 1). On November 28, 2022, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that
24 it failed to state a cognizable claim against any defendant. (Doc. No. 10). The Court gave
25 Plaintiff three options: (1) file an amended complaint; (2) file a notice that he intends to stand on
26 his original complaint subject to the undersigned recommending the district court dismiss the
27 original complaint; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). (Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff was given twenty-one days to exercise
1 one of the three aforementioned options. (Id. at 5). As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not
2 exercised any of the three aforementioned options and the time to do so has expired.
3 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
4 A. Legal Standard
5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action
6 when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with other Rules or with a court
7 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889
8 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Similarly, the Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule
9 of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of
10 the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the
11 inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power to control
12 their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an
13 action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A
14 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order,
15 or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
16 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal
17 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order);
18 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and
19 to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider
20 several factors: (1)the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need
21 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
22 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson,
23 779 F.2d at 1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).
24 B. Analysis
25 The undersigned considers each of the above-stated factors and concludes dismissal is
26 warranted in this case. As to the first factor, the expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to
27 be in the public interest, satisfying the first factor. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983,
1 docket cannot be overstated. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and
2 due to unfilled judicial vacancies, which was further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic,
3 operates under a declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing
4 Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of California. The Court’s time is better spent on its
5 other matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. Because the
6 Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court
7 finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
8 Delays inevitably have the inherent risk that evidence will become stale or witnesses’
9 memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, thereby satisfying the third
10 factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Thus, the third factor, risk of prejudice
11 to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the
12 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522,
13 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff’s inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this
14 action, weighing in favor of dismissal for a risk of prejudice to defendants.
15 Finally, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors
16 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However,
17 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward
18 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case
19 here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th
20 Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Indeed, “trial courts do not have time to waste on multiple failures
21 by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and requirements of our courts.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza,
22 291 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of district court’s
23 involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where petitioner failed to timely respond
24 to court order and noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon the size and
25 load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our beleaguered trial
26 judges.”). Further, the screening order already determined the operative pleading failed to
27 adequately state a meritorious claim.
1 | dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;
2 | Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s November 28, 2022,
3 | Order expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in
4 | arecommendation for dismissal of this action. (Doc. 10 at 5, 7-11). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate
5 || warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. And the instant dismissal is a
6 | dismissal without prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, thereby
7 | addressing the fifth factor.
8 After considering the factors set forth supra and binding case law, the undersigned
9 | recommends dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and Local Rule 110.
10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
11 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case.
12 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
13 This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to obey court orders
14 | and failure to prosecute.
15 NOTICE
16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
17 || Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days
18 | of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
19 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
20 | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff's failure to file objections within the specified time
21 | may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.
22 | 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
| Dated: _ January 11, 2023 Mihaw. Mh. Bareh fackte
24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28