Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents Or Mr. President Of The United States Barack Obama

Filing 3

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court's order of April 14, 2014 re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Young Yil Jo ; referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/16/14. Objections to F&R due by 6/9/2014 (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

YOUNG YIL JO,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
vs.
SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS,
et al.,
Defendants.

1:13-cv-02045-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER
(Doc. 2.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN TWENTY
DAYS

17
18
19

On April 14, 2014, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to either submit an

20

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee for this action, within fifteen days.

21

(Doc. 2.) The fifteen day time period has expired, and plaintiff has not paid the filing fee,

22

submitted an application, 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, Athe 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

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 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 help himself by

6

resolving payment of the filing fee for his lawsuit or respond to the Court’s order. Thus, both

7

the first and second factors 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 order 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 has not paid the

16

filing fee for this action, making it likely that Plaintiff is indigent, which would make monetary

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

21
22

23
24

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
without prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to obey the Court=s order of April 14, 2014.

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 twenty

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:

May 16, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3