Park v. Six Unknown Names Agents Or Mr. President Of The United States Barack Obama
Filing
3
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss 1 Case for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with Court Order; Objections, if any, Due in Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/31/2013. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 12/5/2013. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GEMS PARK,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
vs.
SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS,
et al.,
Defendants.
16
1:13-cv-01503-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER
(Doc. 2.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS
17
On September 19, 2013, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a signed
18
complaint, and either submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee
19
for this action, within thirty days. (Doc. 2.) The thirty day time period has expired, and
20
Plaintiff has not filed a signed complaint, paid the filing fee, submitted an application, or
21
otherwise responded to the Court's order.1
22
In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives
23
set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public=s interest in
24
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
25
26
27
28
1
The United States Postal Service returned the order on October 21, 2013 as undeliverable. A notation
on the envelope indicates that Plaintiff is not at the facility located at Plaintiff’s address of record. However,
Plaintiff has not notified the court of any change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party=s prior
address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f).
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 September 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 submit a
9
complaint bearing his signature. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of
10
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 respond to the Court's order that is causing delay. Therefore, the third
15
factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
16
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little
17
available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the
18
Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff failed to pay the
19
filing fee for this action, making it unlikely that monetary sanctions would be effective, and
20
given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not
21
available.
22
prejudice, the Court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with
23
prejudice.
24
25
26
27
However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without
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
without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court=s order of September 19, 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 thirty
3
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written
4
objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
5
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections
6
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.
7
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
12
13
14
October 31, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
6i0kij8d
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?