Jason Allan Singer v. Matthew Braman et al

Filing 14

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the Court's June 15, 2017 Order. These findings and recommendations will be s ubmitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties m ay file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties areadvised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015). Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/31/2017. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JASON ALLAN SINGER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15
16

MATTHEW BRAMAN, et al.
Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00725-DAD-EPG
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
PLAINTIFF’S CASE FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER
(ECF Nos. 1, 11)

17
18

Plaintiff Jason Allan Singer, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint on

19

May 18, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

20

Defendants Downtowner Inn in Bakersfield, California; Matthew Braman, the night manager of

21

the Downtowner Inn; Sandy Cartwright, the night clerk at the Downtowner Inn; and Stephany

22

Munoz, a room cleaner at the Downtowner Inn. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired with

23

the Bakersfield Police Department to cause him injury.

24

On June 15, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to its authority in 28

25

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (ECF No. 11.) The Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a

26

claim upon which relief could be granted. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with

27

leave to amend. Plaintiff was instructed to consider the legal standards set forth in the screening

28
1

1

order, and that he “should only file an amended complaint if he believes his claims are

2

cognizable.” (Id. at 6). The deadline for filing the amended complaint was set for July 17, 2017,

3

and Plaintiff was warned that “[f]ailure to file an amended complaint by the date specified will

4

result in dismissal of this action.” (Id.)

5
6
7

As of the date of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff has not filed an amended
complaint.
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules

8

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all

9

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to

10

control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including,

11

where appropriate . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

12

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a

13

court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54

14

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

15

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of

16

complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of

17

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

18

To determine whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court

19

order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the

20

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

21

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

22

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik,

23

963 F.2d at 1260-61; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.

24

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

25

litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal because the

26

case has been pending since May 25, 2017, the date it was it transferred to this District.

27

Following the Court’s June 15, 2017 Order, however, Plaintiff has shown no interest in

28

participating in the litigation any further. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also
2

1

weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any unreasonable delay

2

in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth

3

factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is outweighed by the factors in

4

favor of dismissal. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that her failure to obey the court’s order

5

will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d

6

at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s June 15, 2017 Order stated that the case

7

would be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 20.) Moreover,

8

there are few sanctions that could compel Plaintiffs to prosecute an action that they are simply

9

uninterested in pursuing, particular at this early stage of litigation.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for

11

Plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the Court’s June

12

15, 2017 Order.

13

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

14

assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section

15

636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and

16

recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be

17

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are

18

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

19

District Court’s order. Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015).

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 31, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3