Hutson v. Baeza

Filing 22

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF RE 14 , 15 , 16 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/15/2016. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 9/19/2016. (Lundstrom, T).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LORENZO DARNELL HUTSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
MICHAEL BAEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00012-DAD-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16]

Plaintiff Lorenzo Darnell Hutson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction and this matter

19

was therefore referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local

20

Rule 302. (ECF No. 9.)

21

I.

22

RELEVANT HISTORY

23

On July 7, 2016, the Court vacated the Findings and Recommendations recommending

24

dismissal of the action for failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a cognizable claim

25

for relief. Plaintiff was granted thirty days from the date of service of the July 7, 2016, order to file an

26

amended complaint. More than thirty days have since passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or

27

///

28

///
1

1

otherwise responded to the Court’s order.1 As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth

2

any claims upon which relief may be granted.

3

II.

4

DISCUSSION

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do

13

and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226

14

(citation omitted).

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of

19

litigants . . . .” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

20

The Court constrained to find that the prejudice factor weighs against dismissal because the

21

mere pendency of an action does not constitute prejudice. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228; Pagtalunan,

22

291 F.3d at 642-43. Further, while public policy favors disposition on the merits and therefore weighs

23

against dismissal. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643.

24

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

25

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

26

the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders

27
28

1

On July 22, 2016, the July 7, 2016, order was returned to the Court as “undeliverable.”

2

1

which suggests lack of diligence on Plaintiff’s part with respect to prosecuting this action. In sum, the

2

Court finds that dismissal is warranted given Plaintiff’s unwillingness to file an amended complaint or

3

otherwise respond to the Court’s July 7, 2016, order vacating the Findings and Recommendation

4

recommending dismissal of the action and granting Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint.

5

III.

6

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant action be dismissed,

7
8

with prejudice, for failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a cognizable claim for

9

relief.

10

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

11

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

12

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with

13

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

14

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

15

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

16

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

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

20

August 15, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3