Baker v. German, et al.

Filing 25

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Action for Failure to Comply With a Court Order 24 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/19/17: 20-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DOMINIQUE D. BAKER, Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 11 HUMBERTO GERMAN, et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-01873-AWI-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER [ECF No. 24] Plaintiff Dominique Baker is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 14, 2017, the Court issued an order finding Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 16 17 stated a cognizable claim for excessive force against Defendants Humberto German and Phillip 18 Holguin. The Court forwarded Plaintiff the necessary service of process forms for completion and 19 return within thirty days. Over thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not submitted the necessary 20 service of process forms or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.1 The Court’s order specifically 21 stated that the failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 24.) 22 The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, 23 impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. 24 County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to 25 comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution 26 of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) Bautista v. Los Angeles 27 28 1 The Court’s docket reflects that the June 14, 2017, was returned by the United States Postal Office as undeliverable. 1 1 the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 2 sanctions. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th 3 Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do 4 and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 5 (citation omitted). 6 “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” 7 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks 8 omitted). Further, the Court’s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal, as “[i]t is 9 incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of 10 litigants . . . .” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Having considered the above factors, and in light of Plaintiff’s failure to submit the necessary 11 12 service documents as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS this action be dismissed, without 13 14 prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 15 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) 17 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 18 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 19 Findings and Recommendations.” 20 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 21 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: 25 July 19, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 2

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?