Mendoza v. Golden Valley Health Centers et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that This Action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff's Failure to State a Claim re 1 Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/12/2017. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:16-cv-01611-DAD-SAB
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY
GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH CENTERS, et
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this action on October 26, 2016. (ECF No. 16.) On
18 December 20, 2016, the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim.
19 (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff was provided with thirty days in which to file an amended complaint.
20 Rather than filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed objections to the screening order on
21 January 20, 2017. (ECF No. 3.) On April 28, 2017, the district judge issued an order denying
22 Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration, and Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint
23 within thirty days. (ECF No. 4.) On May 30, 2017, Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to
24 July 5, 2017 to file his amended complaint. (ECF No. 6.) The deadline for Plaintiff to file his
25 amended complaint has passed; and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise
26 responded to the May 30, 2017 order.
Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to involuntarily dismiss an
28 action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute the action or fails to comply with a court order. Fed. R.
1 Civ. P. 41(b). Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with
2 these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
3 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power
4 to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
5 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.
A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to
8 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
9 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
10 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended
11 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to
12 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.
13 United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply
14 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack
15 of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a pretrial order,
17 the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
18 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public
19 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
20 sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226
21 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in
22 deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action.
23 Id. (citation omitted).
In this instance, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the
25 Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. Plaintiff was ordered to file
26 an amended complaint by July 5, 2017. Plaintiff has been provided with the legal standards that
27 would apply to his claims and the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has neither
28 filed an amended complaint nor otherwise responded to the May 30, 2017 order. Plaintiff’s
1 failure to comply with the orders of the Court hinders the Court’s ability to move this action
2 towards disposition, and indicates that Plaintiff does not intend to diligently litigate this action.
Since it appears that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently there arises a
4 rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants in this action. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447,
5 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). This risk of prejudice may be rebutted if Plaintiff offers an excuse for
6 the delay. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1453. However, the Court is aware of no reason for Plaintiff’s
7 failure to file an amended complaint and the risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in
8 favor of dismissal.
The public policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits is greatly outweighed by the
10 factors in favor of dismissal. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move this action forward. This
11 action can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at
12 issue, and the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. In this
13 instance, the fourth factor does not outweigh Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders.
Finally, a court’s warning to a party that their failure to obey the court’s order will result
15 in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;
16 Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s December 20, 2016 and April
17 27, 2017 orders both informed Plaintiff that the failure to file an amended complaint would result
18 in dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 2 at 12:21-22; ECF No. 4 at 4:15-17.) Thus, Plaintiff had
19 adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order and
20 his failure to state a claim.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for
22 Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this
24 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30)
25 days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these findings
26 and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
27 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”
The district judge will review the
28 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
1 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the
2 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing
3 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 12, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?