Chester v. King, et al.

Filing 59

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED Based on Plaintiff's Failure to Obey the Court's Order Issued on June 10, 2020 re 10 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/9/2020. 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

RAYMOND D. CHESTER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

AUDREY KING, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:16-cv-01257-DAD-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER
(ECF No. 57.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

17
18
19
20
21

I.

BACKGROUND
Raymond D. Chester (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22

On June 10, 2020, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition or

23

notice of non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed on August 19, 2019 by

24

defendants Audrey King (Executive Director), Jagsir Sandhu, M.D. (Chief Medical Officer), and

25

Robert Withrow, M.D. (Medical Director of Coalinga State Hospital) (collectively,

26

“Defendants”), within thirty days (ECF No. 45.) The thirty day time period has expired and

27

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or notice of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for

28

summary judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s June 10, 2020 order.
1

1

II.

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

2

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set

3

forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in

4

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

5

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

6

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639,

7

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

8

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

9

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the

10

action has been pending since August 25, 2016. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s

11

order may reflect Plaintiff’s disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the court

12

cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not defend his case

13

against summary judgment by defendants King, Sandhu, and Withrow. Thus, both the first and

14

second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

15

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

16

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently

17

increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and

18

it is Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for

19

summary judgment that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

20

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

21

available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the

22

court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Given that Plaintiff is a

23

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this action, the court finds monetary

24

sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence

25

or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case

26

is without prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of

27

dismissal with prejudice.

28

///
2

1

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always

2

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

3

III.

4
5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order issued on of May 29, 2020.

6

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

7

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

8

(14) days from the date of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file

9

written objections with the court.

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

10

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served

11

and filed within ten (10) days after the date the objections are filed. The parties are advised that

12

failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

13

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

14

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 9, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3