Broussard v. Beard, et al
Filing
19
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Case for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with Court Order 16 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/15/13. Objections, If Any, Due in Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CURLY JOHN BROUSSARD, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
vs.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.
1:13-cv-01569-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER
(Doc. 16.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS
17
On October 4, 2013, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit an
18
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action, within
19
thirty days. (Doc. 16.) The thirty day time period has expired, and Plaintiff has not paid the
20
filing fee, submitted an application, or otherwise responded to the court's order.
21
In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives
22
set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public=s interest in
23
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
24
prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the
25
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
26
639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
27
A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@
28
id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the
1
1
action has been pending since June 13, 2013. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order
2
may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the court cannot
3
continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by
4
resolving payment of the filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors
5
weigh in favor of dismissal.
6
Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in
7
and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently
8
increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it
9
is Plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order that is causing delay. Therefore, the third
10
factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
11
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little
12
available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the
13
court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff has not paid the
14
filing fee for this action, increasing the likelihood that monetary sanctions of little use, and
15
given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not
16
available.
17
prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with
18
prejudice.
19
20
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.
21
22
However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without
Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed
without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the court=s order of October 4, 2013.
23
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
24
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty
25
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
26
objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
27
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections
28
///
2
1
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.
2
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
7
8
9
November 15, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
6i0kij8d
10
11
12
13
14
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?