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)

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