Leiva v. Jackson

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Case be DISMISSED, With Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Prosecute, and Failure to Comply With a Court Order re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/16/2017. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

ANDRE LEIVA,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

1:16-cv-00167-AWI-EPG (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM,
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER
(ECF NOS. 1 & 10)

v.
W. JACKSON,
Defendant.

11

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
TWENTY-ONE DAYS

12
13
14
15

Andre Leiva (“Plaintiff”) is a state 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 February 5, 2016. (ECF No. 1). On March 31, 2017, the Court screened

18

Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

19

(ECF No. 10). The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days from the date of service of the screening

20

order to file an amended complaint or to notify the Court that he wishes to stand on his

21

complaint, subject to findings and recommendations to the district judge consistent with the

22

screening order.

23

complaint or to notify the court that he wishes to stand on his complaint could result in the

24

dismissal of this case. (Id. at p. 6).

(Id.).

The Court also warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended

25

The time period expired, and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or notify the

26

Court that he wishes to stand on his complaint. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that

27

Plaintiff’s case be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to comply with

28

a court order, and failure to prosecute.
1

1

“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] for failure to prosecute or failure to

2

comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public=s interest

3

in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

4

prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the

5

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d

6

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

7

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

8

Id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly,

9

this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

10

Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in

11

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. at 642 (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). However,

12

Adelay inherently increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will

13

become stale,@ id. at 643, and it is Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint or to notify

14

the Court that he wishes to stand on his complaint that is causing delay. The Court found that

15

Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim approximately a month and a half ago. The case is

16

now stalled until Plaintiff files an amended complaint or notifies the Court that he wishes to

17

stand on his Complaint. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

18

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little

19

available to the Court that would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the

20

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Monetary sanctions are of

21

little use, considering Plaintiff’s incarceration and in forma pauperis status, and given the stage

22

of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. While dismissal

23

with prejudice is a harsh sanction, the Court has already found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed

24

to state a claim.

25
26
27
28

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor weighs
against dismissal. Id.
After weighing the factors, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:
2

1

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), this action be

2

DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon

3

which relief may be granted under § 1983, as well as Plaintiff’s failure to

4

comply with a Court order and failure to prosecute;
2. This dismissal be subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C.

5
6

§ 1915(g). Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015); and

7

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

8

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to the

9

case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days after

10

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

11

with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

12

Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

13

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d

14

834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 16, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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