Williams v. Andrade et al

Filing 8

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Case For Failure to Obey Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/26/2015, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GERRY WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.

1:14-cv-02073-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO
OBEY COURT ORDER
(Doc. 6.)

J. ANDRADE, et al.,
Defendants.

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY
(30) DAYS

16
17
18
19

On January 15, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the $50.00

20

balance owed for the filing fees for this action, within thirty days. (Doc. 6.) The thirty day

21

period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not paid the $50.00 balance owed or otherwise

22

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 29, 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 help himself by

6

resolving payment of the filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors

7

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 pay the filing fee for this action that is causing delay. Therefore, the

12

third 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. Monetary sanctions in this

16

circumstance are 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

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

22

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based

23

on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court=s order of January 15, 2015. These findings and

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 thirty (30) days after being

26

served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the

27

court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

28

Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
2

1

may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th

2

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

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 26, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

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

23
24
25
26
27
28
3