Ahdom v. Etchebehere et al

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED Without Prejudice Based on Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With Court Orders re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/4/2014. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BILAL AHDOM,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
C. ETCHEBEHERE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:13-cv-01623-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDERS
(Docs. 5, 10.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS

17

On October 10, 2013 and November 25, 2013, the court issued orders requiring Plaintiff

18

to sign and return the court’s consent/decline form, indicating whether he will consent to

19

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this case, within thirty days. (Docs. 5, 10.) The thirty day

20

deadlines have expired, and plaintiff has not signed and returned the court’s form or otherwise

21

responded to the court's order.

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

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

26

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

27

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

28

///
1

1

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

2

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

3

action has been pending since October 9, 2013. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's

4

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

5

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

6

returning the court’s form pursuant to the court’s orders. Thus, both the first and second factors

7

weigh in favor of dismissal.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

is Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's orders that is causing delay. Therefore, the third

12

factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

13

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

14

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

15

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in

16

forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage

17

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

18

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

19

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

20
21

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

22

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed

23

without prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to obey the court=s orders of October 10, 2013 and

24

November 25, 2013.

25

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

26

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

27

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

28

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

8
9
10

February 4, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3