Fields v. Roberts
Filing
86
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court's Order of August 23, 2012 80 ; referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/30/12. Objections to F&R due by 1/7/2013 (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN E. FIELDS,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
vs.
P. ROBERTS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:06-cv-00407-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER
(Doc. 82.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS
16
17
Kevin E. Fields ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on April 10, 2006.
19
(Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the Fifth Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on June 24,
20
2010, against Defendant Jeff Neubarth for deliberate indifference.1 (Doc. 51.)
21
On June 5, 2012, the Clerk of Court entered default against defendant Neubarth for failure to
22
respond to the complaint. (Doc. 77.) On June 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment
23
against defendant Neubarth, pursuant to Rule 55(b). (Doc. 79.) On August 23, 2012, the Court issued
24
an order requiring Plaintiff to supply further information in support of the motion, within forty-five days.
25
(Doc. 80.) On September 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended motion for
26
1
27
The Court dismissed Defendant P. Roberts from this action on March 12, 2012, based on Plaintiff’s failure to effect
service. (Doc. 75.) Therefore, Jeff Neubarth is the only Defendant remaining in this action.
28
1
1
default judgment against Defendant Neubarth, containing further information as required by the Court.
2
(Doc. 81.) On September 10, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended
3
motion, within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 82.) On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a declaration in
4
support of an amended motion for default judgment, declaring that defendant Neubarth is not in the
5
military service. (Doc. 83.) However, Plaintiff has not filed an amended motion for default judgment
6
or otherwise responded to the court's orders.
7
In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set forth
8
in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious
9
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to
10
defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring
11
disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing
12
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
13
“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’” id.
14
(quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the action has
15
been pending for more than six years. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order may reflect
16
Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot continue to expend
17
its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by submitting information needed by
18
the court to determine whether default judgment should be entered in this case. Thus, both the first and
19
second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
20
Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of
21
itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently increases the risk
22
that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it is Plaintiff's failure to
23
argue his motion for default judgment that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor
24
of dismissal.
25
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available
26
to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further
27
unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action,
28
2
1
making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the circumstances of this case, the preclusion of
2
evidence or witnesses at trial is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in
3
this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of
4
dismissal with prejudice.
5
6
7
8
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always weigh
against dismissal. Id. at 643.
Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on
Plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of August 23, 2012.
9
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned
10
to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after being
11
served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court.
12
Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
13
Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
14
waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij
November 30, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?