Armstrong v. Hedgpeth, et al.
Filing
7
FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS To Dismiss Case For Failure To Obey A Court Order (Doc. 3 ), Objections, If Any, Due In Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/14/2011. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 8/18/2011. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,
7
8
9
10
Plaintiff,
vs.
A. HEDGPETH, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:11-cv-00761-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER
(Doc. 3.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS
11
12
On May 17, 2011, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either submit an application to
13
proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action, within forty-five (45) days. (Doc.
14
3.) The forty-five (45) day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not submitted an application, paid
15
the filing fee, or otherwise responded to the court's order.
16
In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set forth
17
in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious
18
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to
19
defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring
20
disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing
21
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
22
“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’” id.
23
(quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the action has
24
been pending since May 11, 2011. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order may reflect
25
Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot continue to expend
26
its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by resolving the payment of the filing
27
fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
28
1
1
Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of
2
itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently increases the risk
3
that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it is Plaintiff's failure to pay
4
the filing fee in the first instance and to respond to the Court's order in the second instance that is causing
5
delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
6
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available
7
to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further
8
unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Because Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, it is likely
9
that he is indigent, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these
10
proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the
11
dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of issuing the
12
harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.
13
14
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always weigh
against dismissal. Id. at 643.
15
16
Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on
Plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of May 17, 2011.
17
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned
18
to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after being
19
served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court.
20
Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
21
Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
22
waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated:
6i0kij
July 14, 2011
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
2
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?