Carlos Flores v. White Warden
Filing
18
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss 16 Case for Failure to Obey a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/17/2011. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 12/22/2011. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CARLOS FLORES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
WARDEN WHITE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:11-cv-00006-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER
(Doc. 17.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS
16
17
On September 9, 2011, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit an application to
18
proceed in forma pauperis on the appropriate form, or in the alternative, pay the $350.00 filing fee for
19
this action, within forty-five days. (Doc. 17.) The forty-five day period has now expired, and Plaintiff
20
has not paid the filing fee, submitted the required application, or otherwise responded to the Court's
21
order.
22
In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set forth
23
in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious
24
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to
25
defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring
26
disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing
27
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
28
1
1
“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’” id.
2
(quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the action has
3
been pending since December 21, 2010. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order may reflect
4
Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot continue to expend
5
its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by resolving the payment of the filing
6
fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
7
Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of
8
itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently increases the risk
9
that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it is Plaintiff's failure to pay
10
the filing fee or submit an appropriate application to proceed in forma pauperis at the time he filed the
11
Complaint in the first instance, and to respond to the Court's order in the second instance that is causing
12
delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
13
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available
14
to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further
15
unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this action,
16
indicating the likelihood that he is indigent, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early
17
stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch
18
as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of issuing
19
the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.
20
21
22
23
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 September 9, 2011.
24
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned
25
to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after being
26
served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court.
27
Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
28
2
1
Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
2
waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij
November 17, 2011
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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?