Villa v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 33

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Defendants' 29 Motion to Dismiss, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/2/2014, referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ROBERT VILLA,
Plaintiff,
v.
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

1:11-cv-01080-LJO-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS (ECF No. 29)
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

15
Findings and Recommendations

16
17

I.

Procedural History

18

Plaintiff Robert Villa (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner currently housed in the

19

Riverside County Jail, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

20

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 30, 2011. (ECF No. 1.)

21

Following screening, this action currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint

22

against Defendants Garikaparthi, Vu, Joaquin, and Shiesha for deliberate indifference to serious

23

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

24

On January 7, 2013, Defendants Garikaparthi, Vu, Joaquin and Shiesha filed an answer to

25

the complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On September 11, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and

26

Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that order, discovery in this matter closed on May 11, 2014, and

27

the dispositive motion deadline expired on July 21, 2014. (ECF No. 21.)

28

1

1

On July 11, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss this action with

2

prejudice for failure to prosecute, or to vacate and reset the Discovery and Scheduling Order.

3

(ECF No. 29.) On August 8, 2014, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file an

4

opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-one (21) days. (ECF No. 30.) On

5

August 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 32.) The

6

motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

7

As discussed below, the Court recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss this

8

action be denied and that Defendants’ motion to vacate and reset the Discovery and Scheduling

9

Order be granted.

10

II.

11

Defendants move to dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 183(b). In the alternative, Defendants

13

move to vacate the existing Discovery and Scheduling Order and adopt a new Discovery and

14

Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 29, pp. 1-2.)

15
16

A.

Legal Standard – Involuntary Dismissal

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that a defendant may move to dismiss the

17

action “if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R.

18

Civ. P. 41(b). District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the

19

exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.”

20

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action,

21

with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or

22

failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)

23

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th

24

Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

25

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

26

comply with court order).

27
28

2

In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1)

1
2

the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its

3

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

4

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779

5

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988).

6

B.

7

1. Defendants’ Position
Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s failure to apprise Defendants of his mailing address

8
9

Discussion

warrants dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Defendants report that they served

10

written discovery to Plaintiff on January 30, 2014. (ECF No. 29, Feser Dec. ¶¶ 2-6.) The

11

discovery was served on Plaintiff’s last known address, which was provided on December 11,

12

2013. (ECF No. 25.) Defendants declare that the United States Postal Service returned the

13

envelope containing the discovery to defense counsel with a stamp and sticker stating “Return to

14

Sender.” (ECF No. 29-1, Ex. F to Feser Dec.) Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s failure to

15

provide a proper address for service of documents prevented them from conducting any

16

discovery prior to expiration of the discovery deadline.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s First Informational

17
18

Order, which states, in relevant part, “A pro se plaintiff has an affirmative duty to keep the court

19

and opposing parties apprised of his or her address. Local Rule 182(f).” (ECF No. 2, ¶ 11.)

20

Defendants further argue that Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which provides:

21

Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and
opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a
plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service,
and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixtythree (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action
without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

22
23
24
25

Local Rule 183(b).

26

///

27

///

28

3

2. Plaintiff’s Position

1
2

Plaintiff responds that he was released from custody on July 8, 2014, and before

3

he could notify the Court and Defendants of his new address, he was rearrested and in

4

custody in Riverside County on August 10, 2014. Plaintiff reports that he did not receive

5

any discovery from Defendants prior to his release.

6

Plaintiff has filed a notice of change of address, which indicates he is currently housed at

7

the Riverside County Jail. Plaintiff requests that the Court consider his situation and not dismiss

8

this action.

9
10

3. Analysis
According the record before the Court, discovery was served on Plaintiff on January 30,

11

2014, at 30755 B-Auld Road, Murrieta, California 92563. This address corresponds with the

12

Southwest Detention Center in Riverside County. The return mail envelope containing

13

discovery states, “Return to Sender,” and is marked “Not in Custody.” (ECF No. 29-1, Ex. F.)

14

However, Plaintiff’s opposition suggests that he remained at the Southwest Detention Center

15

until July 8, 2014. Following release, and before he could update his address, Plaintiff was

16

rearrested on August 10, 2014, and is currently housed at the Riverside County Jail.

17

There is no indication as to why Plaintiff would not have received discovery while he

18

remained in custody at the Southwest Detention Center, why the returned envelope indicated that

19

Plaintiff was no longer in custody or why Plaintiff could not have updated his address following

20

his release—whenever it may have occurred. Nonetheless, as Plaintiff has provided a current

21

mailing address, the Court finds that the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

22

merits outweighs the other relevant factors when considering whether to dismiss this action for

23

failure to prosecute. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423. Any prejudice to defendants from the

24

inability to conduct discovery and the related delay will be minimized by granting their request

25

to issue a new Discovery and Scheduling Order. Accordingly, it is recommended that an

26

Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order be issued upon adoption of these Findings and

27

Recommendations.

28

4

1

III.

2

For the reasons set forth above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendants’

3

motion to dismiss, filed on July 11, 2014, be DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART as

4

follows:

5

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute be
DENIED; and

6
7

2. Defendants’ alternative motion to vacate and reset the Discovery and Scheduling
Order be GRANTED; and

8
9

Conclusion and Recommendations

3. An Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order be ISSUED following adoption of the
Findings and Recommendations.

10
11

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

12

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

13

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties

14

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

15

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file

16

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the

17

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, __ F.3d __, __, No. 11-17911,

18

2014 WL 6435497, at *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,

19

1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 2, 2014

23

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

5