Bryson v. Gerson et al

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS To Dismiss Action Without Prejudice For Failure To Obey A Court Order And Failure To Prosecute (ECF No. 14 and 15). Matter is referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Fourteen Day Objection Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/19/2015(Yu, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
SUSAN B. GERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

16

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01979-LJO-MJS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT
ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF Nos. 14 & 15)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE

17
18

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

19

action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. On December 16,

20

2014, Plaintiff was ordered to submit, within thirty days, documents for service of the first

21

amended complaint on Defendant Executive Office for United States Attorneys. (ECF

22

No. 14.) The thirty-day deadline passed without Plaintiff either submitting his service

23

documents or seeking an extension of time to do so.

24

On January 28, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen

25

days, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure

26

to prosecute. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause and the

27

time for doing so has passed.

28

1

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

2

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

3

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

4

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may

5

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.

6

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based

7

on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with

8

local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

9

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

10

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint);

11

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply

12

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.

13

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply

14

with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

15

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

16

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey

17

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several

18

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need

19

to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy

20

favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic

21

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833

22

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

23

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation

24

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third

25

factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a

26

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting

27

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor –

28

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the
2

1

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser

2

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute

3

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not

4

paid the filing fees in this action and likely is unable to pay, making monetary sanctions

5

of little use.

6
7

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be
dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

8

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

9

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

10

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any

11

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

12

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

13

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen

14

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

15

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

16

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

17

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 19, 2015

/s/

21

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3