Sapien v. Chappelle et al
Filing
9
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED With Prejudice for Failure to Comply With the Court's Order and Failure to Prosecute re 1 Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/2/2018. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICHARD C. SAPIEN,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
AUDREY CHAPPELLE, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-0910-DAD-MJS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT
ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
16
17
18
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed on June 24,
19
2016. On March 22, 2017, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
20
Plaintiff was then granted leave to file an amended complaint. When the deadline for
21
filing an amended complaint passed, and Plaintiff had not filed a new pleading or
22
otherwise responded to the Court’s order, the undersigned issued Findings and
23
Recommendations to dismiss this action. (ECF No. 6.)
24
Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for extension of time to file his amended
25
pleading. (ECF No. 7.) Accordingly, the undersigned vacated the previously-issued
26
Findings and Recommendations and granted Plaintiff until November 30, 2017, to file his
27
28
1
amended pleading. That deadline has now passed, and Plaintiff has again failed to file a
2
First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.
3
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
4
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
5
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”
6
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the
7
exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default
8
or dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court
9
may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to
10
obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46
11
F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.
12
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an
13
order requiring amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th
14
Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep
15
court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.
16
1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779
17
F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply
18
with local rules).
19
In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation
20
and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third
21
factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a
22
presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting
23
this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor –
24
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the
25
factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein, particularly where it is unclear whether the
26
named Plaintiff is aware of this action or has brought it on his own behalf. Finally, as for
27
the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available
28
2
1
which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court
2
resources. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee in this action, making monetary sanctions of
3
little use.
4
5
6
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order and failure to prosecute.
The findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District
7
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
8
fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, any party
9
may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
10
document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
11
Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen
12
(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
13
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
14
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
15
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 2, 2018
/s/
19
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
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?