Clark v. California Department Of Corrections And Rehabilitations Substance Abuse Treatment Facility et al

Filing 31

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND DENIAL OF PENDING MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE re 17 , 28 , 30 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/24/2015. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 4/27/2015.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

STEPHEN CLARK,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

vs.
DR. KOKOR, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:12-cv-00461-LJO-BAM PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND
DENIAL OF PENDING MOTIONS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF Nos. 17, 28, 30)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

17
18

Plaintiff Stephen Clark (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 27, 2012. This action proceeds on

20

Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Ugwueze and Kokor for deliberate indifference to

21

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

22

On April 25, 2014, Defendants Ugwueze and Kokor filed a motion to dismiss for failure

23

to state a claim and for qualified immunity. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the

24

motion. Accordingly, on November 7, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to

25

Defendants’ motion to dismiss within twenty-one days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to

26

comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure

27

to prosecute. (ECF No. 25.)

28
1

1

On December 1, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file his

2

response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff failed to file a timely

3

opposition. Therefore, on January 13, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within

4

twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to

5

prosecute. (ECF No. 28.)

6

On February 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, along with a

7

notice of change of address. In his response, Plaintiff indicated that he was forced to relocate his

8

family for safety reasons and requested an extension of time to file his opposition. (ECF No.

9

29.)

10

On February 4, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day (30) extension of time to file

11

his opposition to the motion to dismiss, which was served on Plaintiff at the new address for

12

service he provided on February 3, 2015. The Court also discharged the order to show cause, but

13

cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the order, the action may be dismissed for

14

failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 30.) On February 26, 2015, the

15

Court’s order was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable, unable to

16

forward.

17

Despite multiple opportunities, Plaintiff has failed to file any opposition to the motion to

18

dismiss, which has been pending for nearly one year. Plaintiff has been warned on several

19

occasions that failure to respond to the motion to dismiss would result in dismissal of this action

20

for failure to prosecute.

21

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is

22

required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;

23

(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the

24

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

25

sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citation

26

omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); In re

27

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006);

28

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
2

1

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not

2

conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226

3

(citation omitted).

4

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”

5

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th

6

Cir. 1999)). This action has been pending for almost three years. Defendants attempted to move

7

this case towards disposition by filing a motion to dismiss in April 2014. Despite Plaintiff’s duty

8

to comply with all applicable Local Rules, Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition to

9

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. After the motion had been pending for more than seven months

10

without any opposition, the Court permitted Plaintiff an opportunity to prosecute his case by

11

ordering his opposition. Instead of filing an opposition, Plaintiff requested additional time to

12

oppose the motion. The Court granted the motion, but Plaintiff again failed to file a timely

13

opposition. As a further effort to secure Plaintiff’s compliance and allow him the opportunity to

14

prosecute his case, the Court issued an order to show cause approximately nine months after

15

Defendants moved to dismiss this action. Again, Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Instead, on

16

February 3, 2015, Plaintiff requested a further extension of time to file his opposition. The Court

17

granted the requested extension of time and discharged the order to show cause. Although

18

served on Plaintiff’s last known address, the Court’s order was returned as undeliverable, unable

19

to forward. Since February 3, 2015, Plaintiff has made no effort to contact the Court, and the

20

motion to dismiss has now been pending for approximately eleven months. The Court

21

recognizes that Plaintiff did not receive the Court’s recent order granting him an extension of

22

time to file his opposition, but Plaintiff’s failure to provide a valid address demonstrates his

23

unwillingness to prosecute this action in a timely manner. Indeed, the Court’s efforts to obtain a

24

response from Plaintiff have been repeatedly met with silence on the merits of his claims. The

25

Court cannot effectively manage its docket if a party ceases litigating the case and moving it

26

towards resolution. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

27
28

With regard to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial
in and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). However, “delay
3

1

inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.”

2

Id. In this instance, it is Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and to comply with the Local

3

Rules and court orders that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of

4

dismissal.

5

Because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor usually weighs against

6

dismissal. Id. at 643. However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it

7

is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that

8

direction,” which is the case here. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228 (internal quotation omitted).

9

Finally, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that

14

Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case. Further, the Court repeatedly warned Plaintiff that his

15

failure to file an opposition would result in “dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to

16

prosecute.” (ECF Nos. 25, 28.)

17

In summary, Plaintiff filed this action but is no longer prosecuting it. Nearly one year has

18

passed since Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff has not responded, despite

19

being notified of the requirement to respond and the Court’s orders specifically directing him to

20

respond. (ECF Nos. 25, 28.) The Court cannot afford to expend resources resolving unopposed

21

dispositive motions in a case a plaintiff is no longer prosecuting. Accordingly, the Court finds

22

that dismissal, without prejudice as Plaintiff failed to receive the Court’s February 4, 2015 order,

23

is the appropriate sanction. The Court also finds that all pending motions should be denied

24

without prejudice.

25

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

26

1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute; and

27

2. All pending motions be denied without prejudice.

28
4

1

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

2

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

3

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.

8

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 24, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5