Rios v. City of Bakersfield et al

Filing 22

ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Orders, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/29/2016. All remaining motions are terminated as MOOT. CASE CLOSED. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUVENTINO RIOS,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0372 - JLT
ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS

16
17

Juventino Rios initiated this action for violations of his civil rights, asserting the defendants are

18

liable for using excessive force because officers of the Bakersfield Police Department released a K-9,

19

which bit Plaintiff in the leg. (See Doc. 1) However, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s

20

orders and failed to prosecute this action. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

21

I.

22

Relevant Background
On July 18, 2016, the Court granted the motion filed by J. Miguel Flores to withdraw as counsel

23

for Plaintiff. (Doc. 19) The Court ordered Plaintiff to “file a notification with the Court indicating

24

whether he intends to represent himself going forward or whether he will retain a new attorney” no later

25

than June 3, 2016. (Id. at 3) The Court instructed Plaintiff that if he intended to hire an attorney, he

26

must notify the Court regarding when that would occur. (Id.)

27

Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order. As a result, the Court issued an order to show

28

cause why the action should not be dismissed for the failure to respond to the Court’s order, or in the
1

1

alternative, “to file a notification indicating whether he intends to represent himself.” (Doc. 20 at 2)

2

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to either order of the Court, or taken any further action to prosecute

3

the matter.

4

II.

Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

5
6

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

7

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent

8

power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including

9

dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.

10

1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action

11

or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

12

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment

13

of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

14

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for

15

failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

16

III.

17

Discussion and Analysis
To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court

18

order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

19

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

20

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability

21

of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;

22

Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.

23

In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s

24

interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d

25

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors

26

dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in

27

managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Judges in the Eastern District

28

of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this Court cannot, and will not hold, this
2

1

action in abeyance given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute.

2

The risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury

3

arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

4

542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

5

Significantly, the Ninth Circuit determined a court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the

6

court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the requirement that less drastic sanctions be considered.

7

Malone, 833 F.2d at 131; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “a

8

plaintiff can hardly be surprised” by a sanction of dismissal “in response to willful violation of a [court]

9

order.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 133. Here, Plaintiff was warned that “failure to comply with this or any

10

order of the Court may result in the action being dismissed.” (Doc. 19 at 4, emphasis in original).

11

Again, in the order to show cause Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Court’s orders

12

would result in dismissal of action. (Doc. 20 at 1-2) The warnings that dismissal would result from his

13

noncompliance with the Court’s orders satisfies the Court’s obligation to consider lesser sanctions. See

14

Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. Given these facts, the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is

15

outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal.

16

IV.

17
18

Conclusion and Order
Plaintiff failed to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the Court’s orders dated July 18, 2016

(Doc. 19) and August 30, 2016 (Doc. 20). Thus, Plaintiff also failed to continue to prosecute the action.

19

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

20

1.

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice;

21

2.

All remaining motions are terminated as MOOT; and

22

3.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the action.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 29, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
3