Aaron Reddix v. City of Los Angles et al

Filing 17

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (See document for further details.) (sbou)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AARON REDDIX, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CV 17-00484-RGK (PJW) [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 16 Plaintiff filed this civil rights action in 2017, alleging that a 17 police detective involved in his arrest and prosecution filed a false 18 police report and perjured himself at the preliminary hearing. 19 time, Plaintiff was in Men’s Central Jail in Los Angeles. 20 dismissed the action in the screening process and Plaintiff appealed. 21 In October 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for 22 further proceedings. 23 At the The Court After remand, this Court issued an order giving Plaintiff an 24 opportunity to file a First Amended Complaint, which was sent to his 25 address and was returned as undeliverable because Plaintiff was no 26 longer at Men’s Central Jail. 27 prison locator system and determined that Plaintiff had been 28 transferred to state prison (North Kern) in February 2017 and later The Court then accessed the county 1 Corcoran. 2 no longer in the system, meaning he had been released. 3 contacted Corcoran and learned that Plaintiff had been released from 4 Corcoran and had not left a forwarding address. 5 The state prison locator system showed that Plaintiff was The Court Nevertheless, on December 12, 2017, the Court issued an order to 6 show cause, requiring Plaintiff to update the Court with his current 7 address. 8 respond to the Order, his case would be dismissed under Rule 41(b). 9 That order has now been returned to the Court. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff was warned that, if he did not 10 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a 11 district court to sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to comply 12 with a court order. 13 (1962) (“The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to 14 prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid 15 congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.”). 16 whether dismissal is warranted, the Court considers five factors: 17 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, 18 (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice 19 to Defendants, (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases 20 on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. 21 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992); Omstead v. 22 Dell, 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 In determining 23 The Court finds that the delay here necessarily implicates both 24 the interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s 25 need to efficiently manage its docket--the first and second factors–- 26 and weighs in favor of dismissal. 27 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s interest in expeditious 28 resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”); Pagtalunan v. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 2 1 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding factors of public 2 interest in expeditious resolution of case and court’s need to manage 3 its docket weigh in favor of dismissal where litigant failed to pursue 4 the case for almost four months). 5 Court apprised of his address has caused this action to come to a 6 halt, impermissibly allowing Plaintiff to control the pace of the 7 docket rather than the Court. 8 Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“It is incumbent upon the Court to manage 9 its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants 10 11 Plaintiff’s failure to keep the See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990; . . . .”).1 The third factor--risk of prejudice to Defendants--also weighs in 12 favor of dismissal. 13 fade and the evidence becomes stale, making it increasingly difficult 14 for Defendants to defend themselves against these charges. 15 Phenylpropa-nolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 16 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The law . . . presumes prejudice from unreasonable 17 delay.”). 18 As time goes by, the witnesses’ memories begin to See In re The fourth factor--the general policy favoring resolution of 19 cases on the merits–-weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. 20 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors disposition of cases on the 21 merits.”). 22 merits of his claims. 23 See Pagtalunan, 291 But without Plaintiff, the Court cannot proceed to the Finally, the fifth factor--availability of less drastic 24 alternatives--also weighs in favor of dismissal. 25 to impose a lesser sanction, e.g., monetary sanctions, because The Court is unable 26 27 28 1 The Court notes that Local Rule 41-6 provides that, if a party proceeding pro se fails to keep the Court apprised of his current address, “the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.” 3 1 Plaintiff is proceeding IFP (and, therefore, does not have any money 2 to pay sanctions) and because he cannot be found. 3 Considering all five factors, the Court concludes that dismissal 4 for failure to prosecute is warranted. 5 (concluding dismissal appropriate where supported by three factors); 6 Pagtalunan, 293 F.3d at 643 (same). 7 See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: January 12, 2018 9 10 11 R. GARY KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 Presented by: 17 18 19 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C:\Users\imartine\AppData\Local\Temp\notesC7A056\Ord_dismiss.failure.prosecute.wpd 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?