Vella v. Clark, et al.

Filing 62

ORDER VACATING Trial Dates, DISMISSING ACTION With Prejudice to Failure to Comply With the Scheduling Order and Directing Clerk of Court to Close Case signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/22/2016. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN ANTHONY VELLA,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
EDGAR CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER VACATING TRIAL DATES,
DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
SCHEDULING ORDER AND DIRECTING
CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE
[Docs. 59, 61)

17

I.

18

BACKGROUND

19

Plaintiff John Anthony Vella, a former state prisoner proceeding pro, filed this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 27, 2012. This case is set for jury trial on October 25,

21

2016, on Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendants Dr.

22

Edgar Clark and M. Gray.

23
24

Plaintiff’s pretrial statement was due on or before June 24, 2016, but he failed to file one, and
he has not filed a response to the order to show cause filed on August 8, 2016.

25

II.

26

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

27

On February 23, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring Plaintiff to file a pretrial

28

statement on or before June 24, 2016. Plaintiff failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the
1

1

order, and on August 8, 2016, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause within ten days why this action

2

should not be dismissed. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to respond to the order would result in

3

dismissal of this action, with prejudice. More than ten days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed a

4

response to the order.

5

The failure to obey a scheduling order is grounds for the imposition of sanctions. Fed. R. Civ.

6

P. 16(f)(1)(C). The second scheduling order contained notice to Plaintiff that the failure to file a

7

pretrial statement in compliance with the order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including

8

dismissal. (Doc. 59.) Further, in the order to show cause, the Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to

9

respond to the order would result in dismissal. (Doc. 61.)

10

A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered. Johnson v. Mammoth

11

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties

12

are required to exercise due diligence, Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080,

13

1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609), and the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to

14

file a pretrial statement and failure to respond to the order to show cause warrant the imposition of

15

sanctions.

16

III.

17

DISMISSAL AS A SANCTION

18

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power,

19

impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action.

20

County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to

21

comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution

22

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

23

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

24

sanctions. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th

25

Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do

26

and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226

27

(citation omitted).

28
2

Bautista v. Los Angeles

1

This case has been pending since 2012, and it is set for jury trial in approximately two months.

2

The expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of

3

dismissal. Id. at 1227. This action has been pending for almost four years, and Plaintiff had ample

4

time to begin trial preparation and comply with the scheduling order. Id. The Court has an extremely

5

heavy caseload, and when litigants disregard orders of the court and deadlines, the Court’s ability to

6

manage its docket and guide cases toward resolution is significantly compromised. Id.

7

As for the risk of prejudice, while the mere pendency of an action does not constitute

8

prejudice, the impairment of Defendants’ ability to proceed to trial is prejudicial. Id. at 1227-28

9

(quotation marks omitted).

10

Regarding the fourth factor, while public policy favors disposition on the merits and therefore

11

weighs against dismissal, it is Plaintiff’s own conduct which is at issue here and which has stalled the

12

case. Id. at 1228.

13

Finally, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. A monetary sanction has

14

little to no benefit in a case in which Plaintiff has ceased responding to the Court’s orders. In addition,

15

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner and in his last communication with the Court, he represented he was

16

without a permanent address or reliable mode of transportation. (Doc. 57.)

17

Discovery is closed and the deadline for filing pretrial motions has passed, rendering

18

unavailable the Court’s ability to impose any limitations on Plaintiff in those areas as a sanction.

19

Lastly, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not an available sanction given that Plaintiff failed to

20

identify any exhibits or provide a witness list via a pretrial statement. See Local Rule 281(b)(10),(11).

21

In conclusion, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted given the procedural posture of this

22

case, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pretrial scheduling order, and the unavailability of

23

satisfactory alternative sanctions. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228-29.

24

IV.

25

ORDER

26

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1.

28

The telephonic trial confirmation hearing set for August 31, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. and jury

trial set for October 25, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. are VACATED;
3

1
2
3

2.

This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a pretrial

statement in compliance with the scheduling order; and
3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

August 22, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4