Granados v. Justice
Filing
25
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this Case be Dismissed, without Prejudice, for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with Court Orders and Failure to Prosecute; Objections, if any, Due within Twenty-One Days signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/27/2017. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due by 12/21/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
ARNULFO GRANADOS,
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
v.
L. JUSTICE,
Defendant.
10
Case No. 1:17-cv-00450-DAD-EPG (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS AND
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF NOS. 13 & 22)
11
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
TWENTY-ONE DAYS
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Arnulfo Granados (“Plaintiff”) was a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
According to
Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff has been paroled and deported. (ECF No. 23).
The Court attempted to hold an initial scheduling conference on November 6, 2017.
Counsel Robert Rogoyski telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendant. Plaintiff failed to
appear. Plaintiff also failed to file the required scheduling conference statement (see ECF No.
13, p. 3).
The Court rescheduled the conference to November 20, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. (ECF No.
21). The Court also required Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not issue for his
failure to attend the initial scheduling conference, and ordered him to file his scheduling
conference statement. (ECF No. 22).
The Court notes that the minutes of the first initial scheduling conference that were
mailed to Plaintiff were returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has thus not kept the Court
apprised of his current address, in violation of the rule that “[e]ach appearing attorney and pro
se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of
1
1
address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of
2
documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.” Local
3
Rule 182(f).
4
Plaintiff failed to appear at the rescheduled conference, failed to respond to the order to
5
show cause, failed to file a current address, and failed to file his scheduling conference
6
statement. Therefore, the Court will recommend that this case be dismissed, without prejudice,
7
for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute.
8
“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] for failure to prosecute or failure to
9
comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public=s interest
10
in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
11
prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the
12
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
13
639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
14
“‘The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.’”
15
Id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly,
16
this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
17
Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in
18
and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. at 642 (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). However,
19
Adelay inherently increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will
20
become stale,@ id. at 643, and it is Plaintiff's failure to attend the initial scheduling conference
21
and respond to court orders that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of
22
dismissal.
23
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little
24
available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the
25
Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Considering Plaintiff’s in
26
forma pauperis status, monetary sanctions are of little use, and given the stage of these
27
proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. Additionally, because the
28
dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of using
2
1
2
3
4
the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor weighs
against dismissal. Id.
After weighing the factors, including the Court’s need to manage its docket, the Court
5
finds that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.
6
RECOMMENDS that:
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY
7
1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to
8
prosecute this case and failure to comply with the Court’s orders entered on
9
July 18, 2017 (ECF No. 13), and November 7, 2017 (ECF No. 22); and
10
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
11
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge
12
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within twenty-
13
one (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
14
written objections with the court.
15
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be
16
served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that
17
failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
18
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
19
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 27, 2017
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?