Goodwin v. Amazon Services, LLC, et al.

Filing 3

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Action, With Prejudice, For Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Obey a Court Order, and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/17/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days.(Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LORAINE GOODWIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-01157-AWI-BAM

v.
AMAZON SERVICES, LLC, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE
TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, AND
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 2)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20

I.

Background
Plaintiff Loraine Goodwin (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se in this civil action and has paid

the filing fee.

21

On March 8, 2018, the Court issued a screening order granting Plaintiff leave to file an

22

amended complaint within thirty (30) days, noting that the Court lacked jurisdiction over claims

23

implicating Plaintiff’s federal income tax liability. (ECF No. 2.) The Court expressly warned

24

Plaintiff that the failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order would

25

result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court

26

order and for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was due on or

27

before April 10, 2018.

28

communicate with the Court.

Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise

1

1

II.

Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey a Court Order

2

A.

Legal Standard

3

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with

4

any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .

5

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

6

dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where

7

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

8

court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action,

9

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46

10

F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

11

963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

12

amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987)

13

(dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

14

In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors:

15

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

16

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

17

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779

18

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).

19

B.

Discussion

20

Here, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is overdue, and she has failed to comply with the

21

Court’s order. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating her

22

case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

23

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a

24

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action.

25

Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against

26

dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d

27

639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002).

28

responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes

However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose

2

1

progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products

2

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

3

Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in

4

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;

5

Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s screening order expressly

6

warned Plaintiff that her failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation

7

of dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state

8

a claim. (ECF No. 2, p. 5.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from

9

her noncompliance.

10

III.

Conclusion and Recommendation

11

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

12

dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, for failure to obey a Court order, and for

13

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action.

14

These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

15

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

16

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written

17

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

18

Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

19

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual

20

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.

21

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 17, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3