Alvarez et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TEN DAYS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/8/2017. (Hernandez, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA AMALIA ALVAREZ, et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
Case No. 1:17-cv-00996-AWI-SAB
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TEN DAYS
Plaintiff Santa Amalia Alvarez filed this action on July 27, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On July
15 28, 2017, an order issued striking the complaint for being unsigned and Plaintiff was ordered to
16 file a signed complaint by close of business on July 31, 2017. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff did not file
17 a signed complaint or otherwise respond to the July 28, 2017 order. Therefore, on August 2,
18 2017, an order issued requiring Plaintiff to show cause on or before August 7, 2017, why this
19 action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the July 28, 2017 order. Plaintiff did
20 not respond to the August 2, 2017 order.
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
22 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
23 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to
24 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
25 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
28 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
1 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
2 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended
3 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to
4 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.
5 United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply
6 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack
7 of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a pretrial order,
9 the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
10 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public
11 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
12 sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226
13 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in
14 deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action.
15 Id. (citation omitted).
In this instance the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the
17 Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. Plaintiff was ordered to file a
18 signed complaint by July 31, 2017. After failing to comply or respond to the order, Plaintiff was
19 ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for such failure to comply.
20 Plaintiff has neither filed a signed complaint nor otherwise responded to the two orders issued by
21 this Court. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the orders of the Court hinders the Court’s ability to
22 move this action towards disposition, and indicates that Plaintiff does not intend to diligently
23 litigate this action.
Since it appears that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently there arises a
25 rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants in this action. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447,
26 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). The risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in favor of
The public policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits is greatly outweighed by the
1 factors in favor of dismissal. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move this action forward. There is
2 currently no complaint filed in this action. This action can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s
3 cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the action cannot simply remain idle on
4 the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. In this instance, the fourth factor does not outweigh Plaintiff’s
5 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
7 in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;
8 Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s August 2, 2017 order
9 required Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply
10 with the July 28,2 017 order. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result
11 from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, without
13 prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of this Court.
This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this
15 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within ten (10)
16 days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings and
17 recommendations with the Court.
Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”
The district judge will review the
19 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
20 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the
21 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing
22 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 8, 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?