Sokolsky v. State of California et al

Filing 91

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be Dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court's Order of August 17, 2017; re 30 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Mark S. Sokolsky ; referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/8/18. Objections to F&R due by 1/25/2018 (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK S. SOKOLSKY,

12
13
14
15

1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO
OBEY COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 90.)

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

Defendants.

16
17
18

Mark S. Sokolsky (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On October 31, 2017, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition

20

or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within thirty (30)

21

days. (ECF No. 90.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an

22

opposition or statement of non-opposition, or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

23

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives

24

set forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in

25

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

26

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

27

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

28

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
1

1

“‘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 December 16, 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 defend against

6

summary judgment. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

7

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

8

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently

9

increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and

10

it is Plaintiff’s continued failure to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary

11

judgment that is causing delay.1 Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

12

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

13

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

14

court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Given that Plaintiff is a

15

civil detainee who is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, the court finds monetary

16

sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of

17

evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in

18

this case is without prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible

19

sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

20
21
22

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.
Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based

23

on Plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of August 17, 2017.

24

recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case,

25

pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after the

26

date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections

These findings and

27
28

1

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed on March 30, 2017. (ECF No. 68.) More
than nine months have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion.
2

1

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

2

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

3

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d

4

834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3