Sanchez v. Six Unknown Names Agents Or Mr. President Of The United States Barack Obama

Filing 7

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/26/2013 recommending that 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint be DISMISSED. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 5/22/2013. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:13-cv-00238-LJO-GSA-PC

JOSE A. SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO
OBEY A COURT ORDER
(Doc. 3.)

vs.
SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, et al.,

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN TWENTY
DAYS

Defendants.

16
17
18

Jose A. Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

19

rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed

20

the Complaint commencing this action on February 15, 2013. (Doc. 1.)

21

On February 21, 2013, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either submit an

22

application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, or pay the $350.00 filing

23

fee for this action, within forty-five (45) days. The forty-five (45) day period has now expired,

24

and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, submitted an application, or otherwise responded to the

25

Court’s order.

26

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives

27

set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public=s interest in

28

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
1

1

prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the

2

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d

3

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

4

A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@

5

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the

6

action has been pending since February 15, 2013. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's

7

order may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court

8

cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by

9

either submitting an application or paying the filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and

10

second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

11

Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in

12

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently

13

increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it

14

is Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee in the first instance and to respond to the Court's order

15

in the second instance that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of

16

dismissal.

17

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little

18

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

19

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff failed to pay the

20

filing fee for this action, making it unlikely that monetary sanctions will be effective, and given

21

the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available.

22

However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the

23

Court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

24
25
26
27

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 February 21, 2013.

28
2

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

2

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

3

(20) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file

4

written objections with the court.

5

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

6

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.

7

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Such a document should be captioned "Objections to

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

11
12
13

April 26, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3