Solesbee v. County of Inyo et al
Filing
79
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing the Action for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Orders, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/28/2016. Referred to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TANYA SOLESBEE,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
COUNTY OF INYO,
Defendants.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-01548 - AWI - JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDERS
16
17
Plaintiff Tanya Solesbee contends she suffered from sexual harassment and a hostile work
18
environment while participating in the Work Release Assistance Program. (Doc. 1) However, Plaintiff
19
has failed to comply with the Court’s orders and failed to prosecute this action. Accordingly, the Court
20
recommends the action be DISMISSED with prejudice.1
21
I.
Relevant Background
22
On May 20, 2016, the Court granted the motion filed by Waukeen McCoy to withdraw as
23
counsel for Plaintiff. (Doc. 76) The Court ordered Plaintiff to “file a notification with the Court
24
indicating whether she intends to represent herself going forward or whether she will retain a new
25
attorney” no later than June 3, 2016. (Id. at 3) The Court instructed Plaintiff that if she intended to hire
26
27
28
1
All discovery deadlines are STAYED pending the District Judge’s evaluation of these findings and
recommendations. In the event the District Judge does not adopt these findings and recommendations,
the Court will set a further scheduling conference to allow completion of discovery.
1
1
an attorney, she must notify the Court regarding when that would occur. (Id.)
2
Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order. As a result, the Court issued an order to show
3
cause why the action should not be dismissed for the failure to respond to the Court’s order, or in the
4
alternative, “to file a notification indicating whether she intends to represent herself.” (Doc. 77 at 2)
5
To date, Plaintiff has not responded to either order of the Court, or taken any further action to prosecute
6
the matter.
7
II.
Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
8
9
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
10
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent
11
power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including
12
dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
13
1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action
14
or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
15
F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment
16
of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
17
comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for
18
failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
19
III.
20
Discussion and Analysis
To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court
21
order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious
22
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
23
defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability
24
of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;
25
Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.
26
In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s
27
interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d
28
983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors
2
1
dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in
2
managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Judges in the Eastern District
3
of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this Court cannot, and will not hold, this
4
action in abeyance given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute.
5
The risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury
6
arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West,
7
542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
8
Significantly, the Ninth Circuit determined a court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the
9
court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the requirement that less drastic sanctions be considered.
10
Malone, 833 F.2d at 131; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “a
11
plaintiff can hardly be surprised” by a sanction of dismissal “in response to willful violation of a
12
[court] order.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 133. Here, Plaintiff was warned that “her failure to comply with
13
this or any order of the Court may result in the action being dismissed.” (Doc. 76 at 3, emphasis
14
in original). Again, in the order to show cause Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the
15
Court’s orders would result in dismissal of action. (Doc. 77 at 1-2) Thus, Plaintiffs received adequate
16
warning that dismissal would result from her noncompliance with the Court’s orders, which satisfies
17
the Court’s obligation to consider lesser sanctions. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. Given these facts,
18
the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of
19
dismissal.
20
IV. Findings and Recommendations
21
Plaintiff failed to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the Court’s orders dated May 20, 2016
22
(Doc. 76) and June 8, 2016 (Doc. 77). Consequently, Plaintiff also failed to continue the prosecution of
23
this action. Based upon the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS:
24
1.
This action be DISMISSED with prejudice; and
25
2.
The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close the action.
26
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
27
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
28
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days
3
1
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections
2
with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
3
Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
4
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991);
5
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 28, 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?