Anthony Nuno v. California State University, Bakersfield et al
Filing
7
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/16/2017. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY NUNO,
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
15
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
BAKERSFIELD, et al.
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:17-cv-0978 -AWI-JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER AND
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Anthony Nuno asserts that he has been subjected to harassment and retaliation based upon his
18
race and national origin, and sought to state claims for violations of his Title VII rights. Because
19
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint and failed to
20
prosecute the action, it is recommended the action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
21
I.
Relevant Background
22
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on July 24, 2017. (Doc. 1) The Court
23
reviewed the complaint, and found Plaintiff failed “to set forth sufficient factual allegations to support
24
the claims alleged.” (Doc. 3) Therefore, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, and
25
granted Plaintiff thirty days from the date of service to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 6) On
26
October 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint.
27
(Doc. 4) The Court granted the request and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later
28
than November 20, 2017. (Doc. 5)
1
Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, after which the Court issued an order to Plaintiff
1
2
to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order and
3
failure to prosecute the action, or in the alternative to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 6) To date,
4
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order, or taken any additional action to prosecute the matter.
5
II.
Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
6
7
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
8
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent
9
power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including
10
dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
11
1986). A court may dismiss an action for a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a
12
court order. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure
13
to comply with an order to file an amended complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128,
14
130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779
15
F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
16
III.
17
Discussion and Analysis
To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court
18
order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious
19
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
20
defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability
21
of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;
22
Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.
Public interest and the Court’s docket
23
A.
24
In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the
25
Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,
26
191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always
27
favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in
28
managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will
2
1
not hold, this case in abeyance based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and
2
failure to take action to continue prosecution in a timely manner. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley &
3
Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining a plaintiff has the burden “to move toward…
4
disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics”). Accordingly, these
5
factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the action.
6
B.
Prejudice to Defendant
7
To determine whether the defendant suffers prejudice, the Court must “examine whether the
8
plaintiff’s actions impair the … ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of
9
the case.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 769 F.2d 611, 618 (9th
10
Cir. 1985)). Significantly, a presumption of prejudiced arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays the
11
prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, Plaintiff
12
has not taken any action to further prosecuting the action, despite being ordered by the Court to do so.
13
Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
14
C.
15
The Court “abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering
16
the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” United States v. Nat’l Medical
17
Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). However, the Ninth Circuit has determined that a
18
court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey could result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration
19
of alternatives” requirement. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As the Ninth
20
Circuit explained, “a plaintiff can hardly be surprised” by a sanction of dismissal “in response to
21
willful violation of a pretrial order.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 133.
22
Consideration of less drastic sanctions
Here, the Court warned Plaintiff in the order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend that
23
failure to comply with the Court’s order “will result in a recommendation that this action be
24
dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.” (Doc. 3 at 6, emphasis in original) In the order to show
25
cause, Plaintiff was again warned that the Court may dismiss the action for “failure to prosecute an
26
action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.” (Doc. 6 at 2) Importantly,
27
the Court need only warn a party once that the matter could be dismissed for failure to comply to
28
satisfy the requirements of Rule 41. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; see also Titus v. Mercedes Benz of North
3
1
America, 695 F.2d 746, 749 n.6 (3rd Cir. 1982) (identifying a “warning” as an alternative sanction).
2
Accordingly, the warnings to Plaintiff satisfied the requirement that the Court consider lesser sanctions,
3
and this factor weighs in favor of dismissal of the action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson,
4
779 F.2d at 1424; Titus, 695 F.2d at 749 n.6.
5
D.
Public policy
6
Given Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with the Court’s orders,
7
the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of
8
dismissal. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133, n.2 (explaining that although “the public policy favoring
9
disposition of cases on their merits . . . weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the
10
other four factors”).
11
IV.
12
13
Findings and Recommendations
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders dated October 24, 2017 (Doc. 5) and
November 27, 2017 (Doc. 6). In doing so, Plaintiff has also failed to prosecute this action.
14
Based upon the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS:
15
1.
This action be DISMISSED without prejudice; and
16
2.
The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close the action.
17
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
18
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
19
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen
20
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written
21
objections. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
22
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
23
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991);
24
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 16, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
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?