Cranford v. Okpala

Filing 19

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Recommending Dismissal of Action for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/22/15. Referred to Judge O'Neill; 15-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
ANTONIA OKPALA,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
[ECF No. 18]

Plaintiff Archie Cranford is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

17
18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions

19

Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison

20

Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).

21

This action is proceeding against Defendant Antonia Okpala for deliberate indifference to a

22

serious medical need. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on May 14, 2015. Plaintiff did not respond

23

to the motion and on July 29, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition

24

or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion within thirty days.1 Local Rule 230(l). More

25

than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the order.

26
1

27
28

On August 6, 2015, the United States Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable and unable to forward. Plaintiff
has not notified the Court of any change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully
effective. Local Rule 182(f).

1

1

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power,

2

impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles

3

County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to

4

comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution

5

of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)

6

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

7

sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th

8

Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

9

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,”

10

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks

11

omitted), and Court’s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal, as “[i]t is incumbent

12

upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants,”

13

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, the Court is

14

constrained to find that the prejudice factor weighs against dismissal because the mere pendency of an

15

action does not constitute prejudice; and public policy favors disposition on the merits, which weighs

16

against dismissal. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43.

17

Nevertheless, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at

18

1228-29; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. A monetary sanction has little to no benefit in a case in which

19

the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or

20

otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action

21

for failure to prosecute. Id. This action, which has been pending since June 2014, requires Plaintiff’s

22

cooperation in its prosecution, the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, and the

23

Court is not in a position to expend its scant resources resolving an unopposed motion in light of

24

Plaintiff’s demonstrated disinterest in continuing the litigation. Id.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, with

25
26

prejudice, for failure to prosecute. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226; Local Rule 110.

27

///

28

///
2

1
2
3

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15) days
after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections

4

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

5

Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

6
7

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:

12

September 22, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3