Crim v. Management & Training Corp. et al

Filing 99

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFFS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 97 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/12/2017. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN MICHAEL CRIM,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORP., et al.,

15

1:09-cv-02041-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 97.)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS

Defendants.
16
17
18
19

John Michael Crim (“Plaintiff”) is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

20

forma pauperis with this civil action. This case was filed on November 20, 2009, and was

21

subsequently dismissed on August 2, 2013, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF Nos.

22

1, 87.) On August 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, which was forwarded to the

23

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and opened as appeal case number 13-16660. (ECF Nos. 89-

24

91.)

25

On April 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of this case and remanded it

26

to this court, and on May 4, 2017, the mandate was entered. (ECF Nos. 95, 96.) The Ninth

27

Circuit directed the district court to consider whether Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint

28

states a claim. Accordingly, the court reopened this case for further proceedings.
1

1

On May 9, 2017, the court issued an order for Plaintiff to respond in writing within ten

2

days, either (1) indicating that he intends to litigate this case, or (2) filing a Notice of Voluntary

3

Dismissal of this case. (ECF No. 97.) The ten-day time period has expired, and Plaintiff has

4

not submitted any response to the court’s order.1

5

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives

6

set forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in

7

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

8

prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the

9

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d

10

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

11

“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’”

12

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the

13

action has been pending since November 20, 2009. Plaintiff’s failure to respond may reflect

14

Plaintiff’s disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the court cannot continue to

15

expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not respond to court’s orders. Thus,

16

both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

17

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in

18

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently

19

increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and

20

it is Plaintiff's failure to respond to the court’s order that is causing delay. Therefore, the third

21

factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

22

///

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

On May 9, 2017, the court served Plaintiff with the order at his address of record with the court, 18801
Wyandotte St., Reseda, CA 91335. (ECF No. 97.) The United States Postal Service returned the order to the court
on May 15, 2017, as undeliverable. (Court Record.) A notation on the envelope indicated that the forwarding
time for plaintiff’s mail had expired, and his new address was 5619 Lankershim Blvd., N. Hollywood, CA 916011723. Id. On May 17, 2017, the court re-served Plaintiff with the order at the N. Hollywood address given on the
returned mail. Id. On May 30, 2017, the United States Postal Service returned the order to the court as
undeliverable, with a notation “RTS-Unable to Forward.” Id. Plaintiff has not notified the court of any recent
change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f).
2

1

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little

2

available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the

3

court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Given that Plaintiff is a

4

former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this action, the court finds

5

monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion

6

of evidence or witnesses is not available.

7

considered in this case is without prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest

8

possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

9
10
11

However, inasmuch as the dismissal being

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

12

on Plaintiff's failure to obey the court=s order of May 9, 2017.

13

recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case,

14

pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after the

15

date of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

16

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

17

Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within

18

seven days after the date the objections are filed. The parties are advised that failure to file

19

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

20

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

21

(9th Cir. 1991)).

These findings and

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 12, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
3