Romero v. Tuolumne County Jail et al
Filing
9
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That the Case be Dismissed, With Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim and Failure to Comply With a Court Order; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Send a Copy of Order to Plaintiff at Additional Address, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/28/17. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
LEIOKO D. ROMERO,
Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
9
TUOLUMNE COUNTY JAIL and
MCCAIG,
10
Defendants.
1:15-cv-01590-AWI-EPG (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CASE BE
DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER
(ECF NOS. 1 & 7)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND A
COPY OF ORDER TO PLAINTIFF AT
ADDITIONAL ADDRESS
11
12
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS
13
14
15
Leioko Romero (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
16
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing
17
this action on October 19, 2015. (ECF No. 1). On November 30, 2016, the Court screened
18
Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that it failed to state a claim. (ECF No. 7). The Court gave
19
Plaintiff thirty days from the date of service of the order to file an amended complaint or to
20
notify the Court that she wishes to stand on her Complaint, subject to findings and
21
recommendations to the district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id.). The Court
22
also warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint or to notify the Court that she
23
wishes to stand on the Complaint would result in the dismissal of her case. (Id. at pgs. 9-10).
24
The time period expired, and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or notify the
25
Court that she wishes to stand on her Complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff failed to keep the
26
Court and opposing parties informed of her current address, as required by Local Rule 183(b)
27
and the First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case (ECF No. 3, p.
28
5).
1
1
2
Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to
state a claim and failure to comply with a court order.
3
“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] for failure to prosecute or failure to
4
comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public=s interest
5
in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
6
prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the
7
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
8
639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
9
“‘The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.’”
10
Id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). This case has
11
been pending for over a year and four months, and it has been over two months since Plaintiff
12
was ordered to file an amended complaint or notify the Court that she wishes to stand on her
13
Complaint. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
14
Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in
15
and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citing Yourish v. California
16
Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir. 1999)). However, Adelay inherently increases the risk
17
that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id. at 643, and it is
18
Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint or to notify the Court that she wishes to stand on
19
her Complaint that is causing delay. The Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a
20
claim over two months ago. The case is now stalled until Plaintiff files an amended complaint
21
or notifies the Court that she wishes to stand on her Complaint. Therefore, the third factor
22
weighs in favor of dismissal.
23
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little
24
available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the
25
Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Monetary sanctions are of
26
little use, considering Plaintiff’s incarceration and in forma pauperis status, and given the stage
27
of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. While dismissal
28
is a harsh sanction, the Court has already found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim.
2
1
2
3
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor weighs
against dismissal. Id. at 643.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:
4
1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) this action be
5
DISMISSED based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may
6
be granted under § 1983, as well as Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court
7
order;
2. This dismissal be subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C.
8
9
§ 1915(g). Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015); and
10
3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
11
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to the
12
case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after being
13
served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the
14
court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
15
Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
16
may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th
17
Cir. 1991).
18
Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that, in addition to the address listed for Plaintiff on the
19
docket, the Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to: Leioko D. Romero,
20
WF5997, Central California Women's Facility, P.O. Box 1508, Chowchilla, CA 93610.
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 28, 2017
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?