Rotroff v. Ahlin, et al.

Filing 21

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss 1 Action with Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Obey Court Order, and Failure to Prosecute; Fourteen (14) Day Objection Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/8/2015. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 4/27/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
DENIS K. ROTROFF,

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-02017-LJO-MJS (PC)

12
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

PAM AHLIN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

20

(ECF Nos. 19 & 20)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE

18
19

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE
TO OBEY COURT ORDER, AND FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) proceeding pro se

21

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos.

22

1 & 7.) No other parties have appeared in the action.

23

On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a

24

claim, but he was given leave to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF

25

No. 19.) On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent, refusing to file an amended

26

complaint in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s Order and seeking leave to object.

27

(ECF No. 20.)

28

1

II.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with
these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of
any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” “District courts have
inherent power to control their dockets [and] . . . [i]n the exercise of that power, they may
impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v.
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure
to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)
(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 126063 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a
complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure
to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);
Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir.
1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LEGAL STANDARD

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several
factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the [C]ourt’s
need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic
alternatives.” Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423.
III.

ANALYSIS
“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors

dismissal.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Yourish v.
California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.1999)). Plaintiff's Complaint was
dismissed for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff has failed to comply with
2

1
2
3
4

the Court’s Order that he file an amended pleading and has indicated he does not intend
to do so. (ECF No. 20.) In such circumstances, the Court cannot justify continuing to
expend its scarce resources in this matter. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh
in favor of dismissal.

5
6
7
8
9
10

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently
prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991).
However, “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories
will fade and evidence will become stale,” id. at 643 (citation omitted), and it is Plaintiff's
failure to comply with Court orders and file an amended pleading that is causing delay.
Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

11
12
13
14
15
16

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is
little available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while
protecting the Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources.
Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making
monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the
preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Finally, because “[p]ublic policy favors disposition of cases on the merits,” this
factor will always weigh against dismissal. Id.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be

dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, failure to obey a
court order, and failure to prosecute.
These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, any
party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
3

1
2
3
4
5

Recommendations.”

Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within

fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to
file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

April 8, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4