Fields v. Rosenthal
Filing
72
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Case, With Prejudice, for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With Court Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/17/2014, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN FIELDS,
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD ROSENTHAL,
Defendant.
1:10-cv-01764-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CASE, WITH PREJUDICE,
FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(Doc. 59.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS
17
18
19
20
21
On February 14, 2014, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition
22
or notice of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of January 17, 2014.
23
(Doc. 59.) Plaintiff has requested and was granted four extensions of time to comply with the
24
court’s order. (Docs. 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 70.) Plaintiff’s latest deadline to comply with
25
the court’s order has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or non-opposition to the
26
motion for summary judgment, or otherwise responded to the court's order.
27
In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives
28
set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public=s interest in
1
1
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
2
prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the
3
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
4
639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
5
A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@
6
id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the
7
action has been pending for nearly four years, since September 2010. Plaintiff's failure to
8
respond to the Court's order may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such
9
an instance, the Court cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who
10
will not help himself by defending his own lawsuit against summary judgment. Thus, both the
11
first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
12
Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in
13
and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently
14
increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it
15
is Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order and defend his lawsuit that is causing delay.
16
Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
17
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little
18
available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the
19
Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Monetary sanctions are of
20
little use, considering Plaintiff’s incarceration, and given the stage of these proceedings, the
21
preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. The dismissal being considered in this
22
case is with prejudice, which is the harshest possible sanction. However, the Court finds this
23
sanction appropriate in light of the fact that seven months have passed since Defendant filed the
24
motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff has yet to appropriately respond. Moreover,
25
Plaintiff was forewarned in the Court's order of February 14, 2014 that if he failed to comply
26
with the court’s order, this action may be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.
27
28
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.
2
1
2
Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed with
prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the court=s order of February 14, 2014.
3
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
4
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty
5
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
6
objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
7
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections
8
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.
9
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 17, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
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?