Elizabeth C. Stewart v. Stanley L. Sniff

Filing 31

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell,the action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. See order for details. (jy)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ELIZABETH C. STEWART,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
STANLEY L. SNIFF, et al.,

14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 13-1153-BRO(PJW)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

15
16

In June 2013, Plaintiff Elizabeth Stewart, a resident of

17

Riverside, California, filed this civil rights action against

18

Defendant Riverside Sheriff Stanley Sniff,1 alleging that he violated

19

her constitutional rights by authorizing a search of her property for

20

methamphetamine, which led to Plaintiff ultimately being arrested for

21

stealing a trailer deputies found on the property.

22

2.)

23

Complaint (“FAC”), which the Court granted.

24
25

(Complaint at 1-

In October 2013, Plaintiff sought leave to file a First Amended
(Doc. Nos. 15, 17.)

In February 2014, Defendant Sniff filed a motion to dismiss.
(Doc. No. 24.)

In response, the Court issued an order, giving

26
27
1

28

Plaintiff subsequently added Deputy Sheriffs Mendez, Franks,
and Thompson as Defendants. (See Doc. No. 18.)

1

Plaintiff until March 28, 2014, to file an opposition.

2

Plaintiff failed to file one.

3

(Doc. No. 26.)

In April 2014, the Court issued an order to show cause why the

4

case should not be dismissed as Plaintiff had still not filed an

5

opposition.

6

opposition no later than May 14, 2014, and warned her that, if she

7

failed to do so, the Court might dismiss the case.

8

respond to the order to show cause and did not file an opposition.

9

(Doc. No. 27.)

The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an

Plaintiff did not

In August 2014, the Court issued an order, granting in part and

10

denying in part Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss the First

11

Amended Complaint and granting Plaintiff leave to file a Second

12

Amended Complaint no later than September 5, 2014.

13

Plaintiff never responded to that order and never filed a Second

14

Amended Complaint.

15

(Doc. No. 30.)

It is well established that a district court has the authority to

16

dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply

17

with court orders.

18

Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (noting district court has authority

19

to dismiss for lack of prosecution to prevent undue delay in disposing

20

of pending cases and to avoid congestion in court’s calendar); Ferdik

21

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding district

22

courts have authority to dismiss actions for failure to comply with

23

any order of the court).

24

appropriate, the Court considers five factors: (1) the public interest

25

in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

26

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the

27

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad

In determining whether dismissal is

28

2

1

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.

2

at 1260-61.

3

Ferdik, 963 F.2d 963

Here, both the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

4

litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh strongly in

5

favor of dismissal.

6

no interest in pursuing this action.

7

did not oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss and, when given an

8

opportunity to amend her surviving claims, did not file an amended

9

complaint.

What is plain to the Court is that Plaintiff has
Despite multiple promptings, she

In fact, the Court has not heard from her for eight

10

months, since January 2014.

11

repeatedly failed to comply with the Court’s orders, despite being

12

repeatedly warned that her case could be dismissed if she failed to do

13

so.

14

litigation to come to a complete standstill.

15

And, during that interval, she has

(See Doc. Nos. 26, 27, 30.)

Her latest failure has caused this

The third factor–-prejudice to defendants–-also weighs in favor

16

of dismissal.

17

lawsuit, a lawsuit it is apparent Plaintiff is no longer interested in

18

pursuing.

19

likely begin to fade and Defendants will be prejudiced as a result.

20

Defendants are expending money to defend against this

Further, as time goes by, the witnesses’ memories will

Although the fourth factor–-the public policy favoring deciding

21

cases on their merits–-ordinarily weighs against dismissal, it is

22

Plaintiff’s responsibility to move the case at a reasonable pace.

23

Morris v. Morgan Stanley, 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991).

24

Considering the extent of the delay caused by Plaintiff’s failure to

25

oppose the motion to dismiss, her refusal to comply with the Court’s

26

orders, and her refusal to file an amended complaint, the public

27

policy favoring resolution on the merits must cede to the other

28

important factors addressed herein.

3

1

Finally, with regard to the fifth factor--availability of less

2

drastic alternatives–-this also weighs in favor of dismissal.

3

Court is unable to impose a lesser sanction, like monetary sanctions,

4

because Plaintiff is indigent, as evidenced by the fact that she is

5

proceeding IFP.

6

suggests that nothing the Court can do will trigger action on her

7

part.

8
9
10

The

And her failure to respond to the Court’s orders

For all these reasons, the action is dismissed without prejudice
for failure to prosecute.

Link, 370 U.S. at 629-30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
DATED:

October 1, 2014.

12
13
BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16

Presented by:

17
18

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C:\Temp\notesD30550\Ord_dismiss.failure.prosecute.wpd

4