Christopher Vaughn Cook v. Riverside Hospitals

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER 4 by Judge James V. Selna. On December 30, 2024, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a Civil Rights Complaint. (Dkt. No. 1.) On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP request"). (Dkt. No. 4 .) On January 30, 2025, the Court postponed a ruling on the IFP request for 30 days so Plaintiff could provide more information. (Dkt. No. 5 .) The Court ordered P laintiff to file a prison account statement that covers the entire six months prior to the filing of the Complaint. (Id.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint with a short and plain statement of a claim. As of this date, m ore than 30 days since the order, Plaintiff has not complied or communicated with the Court. It is ordered that the action is dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P.41(b). [See document for further information.] Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (es)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOHPER VAUGHN COOK,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:24-cv-02744-JVS (E)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A
COURT ORDER [4]

RIVERSIDE HOSPITALS, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On December 30, 2024, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a Civil Rights

19

Complaint. (Dkt. No. 1.) On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Request to

20

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP request”). (Dkt. No. 4.)

21

On January 30, 2025, the Court postponed a ruling on the IFP request for 30

22

days so Plaintiff could provide more information. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Court ordered

23

Plaintiff to file a prison account statement that covers the entire six months prior to

24

the filing of the Complaint. (Id.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file an

25

Amended Complaint with a short and plain statement of a claim. (Id.) The Court

26

warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order within 30 days would

27

result in dismissal of this case. (Id.) As of this date, more than 30 days since the

28

order, Plaintiff has not complied or communicated with the Court.

1

DISCUSSION

2

A.

3

A district court has the inherent power under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Legal Standard.

4

41(b) to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with the court’s

5

order. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962). Specifically, the failure of

6

a plaintiff to comply with a district court’s order to file an amended complaint is

7

properly met with the sanction of dismissal under Rule 41(b). Applied

8

Underwriters, Inc., v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (collecting

9

cases). “Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a plaintiff fails to amend his

10

complaint after the district judge dismisses the complaint with leave to amend, the

11

dismissal is typically considered a dismissal for failing to comply with a court order

12

rather than for failing to prosecute the claim.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191

13

F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999).

14

“[I]n order for a court to dismiss a case as a sanction, the district court must

15

consider five factors: ‘(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;

16

(2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;

17

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

18

availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 986 (quoting

19

Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)). A district

20

court’s sanction of dismissal generally will be affirmed where at least four factors

21

support dismissal or where at least three factors strongly support it. Hernandez, 138

22

F.3d at 399. As stated below, four of the five factors support dismissal.

23

B.

24

Analysis.
1.

25

The Public’s Interest in Expeditious Resolution.

The first factor supports dismissal. “[T]he public’s interest in expeditious

26

resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990.

27

\\

28

\\
2

1
2

2.

The Court’s Need to Manage Its Docket

The second factor also supports dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to

3

the Court’s order interferes with the Court’s ability to manage its docket. See

4

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The trial judge is in the

5

best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with

6

docket management and the public interest. Arguably, Pagtalunan’s petition has

7

consumed some of the court’s time that could have been devoted to other cases on

8

the docket.”) (internal citation omitted); see also Irvin v. Madrid, 749 F. App’x

9

546, 547 (9th Cir. 2019) (“The second factor also favors dismissal because the

10

district court is in the best position to determine whether a particular set of

11

circumstances interferes with docket management.”).

12
13

3.

The Risk of Prejudice to Defendants.

The third factor also supports dismissal. The risk of prejudice is “related to the

14

plaintiff’s reason for defaulting in failing to timely amend.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at

15

991. The record suggests no apparent reason for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or

16

respond to the Court’s latest order. This indicates sufficient prejudice to Defendants.

17

See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (recognizing that the law

18

presumes injury to the defendants from unreasonable delay).

19

4.

The Public Policy Favoring Disposition of the Merits.

20

The fourth factor weighs against dismissal. “We have often said that the

21

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits strongly counsels against

22

dismissal.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460

23

F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399). On the other

24

hand, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a

25

case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that

26

direction.” Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d at 1228 (citations and quotation

27

marks omitted). Thus, this factor alone does not preclude dismissal.

28

\\
3

1

5.

2

The Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives.

The fifth factor supports dismissal. “Here the fact that the [Court] allowed

3

[Plaintiff] an additional thirty days to amend his complaint . . . constituted an

4

attempt at a less drastic sanction than outright dismissal.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

5

F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court also warned Plaintiff that the failure to

6

comply with the Court’s order to amend his Complaint would result in dismissal.

7

See Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d at 1229 (“Warning that failure to obey a

8

court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’

9

requirement.”) (citing, inter alia, Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“Moreover, our

10

decisions also suggest that a district court’s warning to a party that his failure to

11

obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of

12

alternatives’ requirement.”)). Despite the Court’s warning, Plaintiff has failed to

13

file an Amended Complaint or otherwise communicate with the Court.

14

C.

15

Four of the five factors support dismissal of the action for failure to comply

16

Conclusion.

with an order of the Court. In sum, dismissal without prejudice is warranted.

17

ORDER

18

It is ordered that the action is dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

41(b).

20
21

DATED: March 11, 2025

22
23
24

JAMES V. SELNA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
4