Chavarria v. Green et al

Filing 27

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Case for Failure to Obey Court Order 26 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/29/14. Objections if Any, Due in Twenty Days. Referred to Judge O'Neill. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY CHAVARRIA,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.

1:10-cv-02324-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO
OBEY COURT ORDER
(Doc. 26.)

P. A. GREEN, et al.,
Defendants.

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN TWENTY
(20) DAYS

16
17
18
19

On September 9, 2014, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a response to

20

Defendants' motion to dismiss of July 28, 2014, within thirty days. (Doc. 26.) The thirty day

21

period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss or

22

otherwise responded to the Court's order.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
1

1

A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@

2

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

3

action has been pending since December 14, 2010. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's

4

order may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court

5

cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by

6

defending his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

7

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

8

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently

9

increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it

10

is Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss that is causing delay.

11

Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

12

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

13

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

14

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in

15

forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage

16

of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However,

17

inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is

18

stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

19
20

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

21

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed,

22

without prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to obey the court=s order of September 9, 2014.

23

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned

24

to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) days

25

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

26

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate

27

Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections

28

///
2

1

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.

2

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 29, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3