Salmon v. Kern County Sheriff et al

Filing 8

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/4/2013. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN JAMES SALMON, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 KERN COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-00725-AWI-JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 17 Kevin James Salmon (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action 18 against Kern County Sheriff, Child Protective Services, Trima Brown, Marcela Powel, and Deputy 19 Meyes (collectively, “Defendants”). For the following reasons, the Court recommends the action be 20 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 21 I. Relevant Procedural History 22 On May 28, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 23 and determined he failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 3). The Court dismissed the complaint 24 with leave to amend, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date 25 of service, or no later than June 27, 2013. (Id. at 8). 26 After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause 27 why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with 28 the Court’s order. (Doc. 4). In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to 1 1 file an amended complaint (Doc. 5), which was granted by the Court on July 9, 2013. (Doc. 6). The 2 Court ordered Plaintiff to “file a First Amended Complaint no later than August 9, 2013.” (Id. at 1) 3 (emphasis in original). However, Plaintiff failed to comply or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 4 Accordingly, the Court issued a second order to show cause on August 14, 2013. (Doc. 7). The order 5 was returned as “undeliverable” with a note that Plaintiff was no longer in custody on August 19, 2013. 6 Plaintiff’s forwarding address is unknown. 7 II. Requirements of the Local Rules Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the 8 9 Court apprised of his current address: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is 10 returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties 11 within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 12 prejudice for failure to prosecute.” LR 183(b). Because more than 63 days have passed since the 13 document was returned as undeliverable, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules. 14 III. Discussion and Analysis 15 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 16 court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 17 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a 18 party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 19 rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure to comply 20 with local rules); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 21 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 22 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 23 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the 24 Local Rules, or failure to obey a court order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) 25 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 26 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 27 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also 28 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. 2 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 1 2 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The risk of prejudice to the 3 defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence 4 of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th 5 Cir. 1976). In the Orders to Show Cause, the Court warned that it “may dismiss an action with 6 prejudice, based upon a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure 7 to comply with local rules” (Doc. 4 at 2; Doc. 7 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 8 dismissal would result from noncompliance with the Court’s orders, and his failure to prosecute the 9 action. The Court’s warnings to Plaintiff that failure to prosecute and comply with the Local Rules of 10 the Eastern District would result in dismissal satisfies the requirement that the Court consider less 11 drastic measures. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 12 Further, the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in 13 favor of dismissal, especially in light of the fact that Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint. 14 The Court will not, and cannot, hold the case in abeyance based upon Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or 15 notify the Court of a change in address. 16 IV. 17 Findings and Recommendations Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action or and failed to comply with the Local Rules. As 18 set forth above, the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of dismissal of the matter. No 19 lesser sanction is feasible given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: 21 1. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 22 2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this action. 23 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 25 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen 26 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 27 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 28 Recommendations.” 3 1 2 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 4, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?