Tabatabaee v. Santoro et al
Filing
69
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That This Case Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Obey Court Order 68 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/1/17: 14-Day Objection Deadline. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALEX TABATABAEE,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
vs.
K. SANTORO, et al.,
Defendants.
16
1:14-cv-01545-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE
TO OBEY COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 68.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
17
18
On April 13, 2017, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition or
19
notice of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, within twenty-one
20
days. (ECF No. 68.) The twenty-one day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an
21
opposition or non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment or otherwise responded to
22
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 October 2, 2014. 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 his case
6
against 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 failure to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion
11
for summary judgment that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of
12
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. Given that Plaintiff is a
16
prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, the court finds monetary sanctions of little use, and
17
given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not
18
available.
19
prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with
20
prejudice.
21
22
However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.
23
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed
24
based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of April 13, 2017. These findings and
25
recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case,
26
pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after the
27
date of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections
28
with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
2
1
Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within
2
ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
3
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
4
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394
5
(9th Cir. 1991)).
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 1, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?