Brown v. Kern Valley State Prison, et al.

Filing 21

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss 3 Case for Failure to Obey Court Order; Objections, if any, due within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/24/2017. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due by 11/13/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DERRICK BROWN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:17-cv-01168-DAD-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO
OBEY COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 7.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

Derrick Brown (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

24

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

25

August 18, 2017, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, at the United

26

States District Court for the Southern District of California. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On August 28,

27

2017, plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint as a matter of course. (ECF No. 3.) On

28

August 29, 2017, the case was transferred to this court. (ECF No. 4.)
1

1

Plaintiff’s first application to proceed in forma pauperis was not completed. (ECF No.

2

2.) Plaintiff signed the application, but he did not provide any of the information requested on

3

the first two pages of the form. Plaintiff’s failure to complete the form prevents the court from

4

ruling on the application. On August 31, 2017, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to

5

submit a new, completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the filing fee for this

6

action, within thirty days. (ECF No. 7.)

7

On September 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second application to proceed in forma pauperis.

8

(ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff’s second application suffers from the same deficiencies as the first

9

application. Plaintiff signed the application, but he failed to provide any of the required

10

information concerning his financial status, thus preventing the court from ruling on the

11

application.

12

On September 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a third application to proceed in forma pauperis.

13

(ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff’s third application also suffers from deficiencies that prevent the court

14

from ruling on the application. Plaintiff failed to provide the required information, and he also

15

failed to sign the application.

16

The thirty-day time period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a completed

17

application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee for this action. Therefore,

18

Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s August 31, 2017, order.

19

II.

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

20

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives

21

set forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in

22

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

23

prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the

24

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d

25

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

26

“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’”

27

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the

28

action has been pending since August 18, 2017. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s
2

1

order may reflect Plaintiff’s disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the court

2

cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not resolve payment

3

of the filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of

4

dismissal.

5

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in

6

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently

7

increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and

8

it is Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or submit a completed application to proceed in

9

forma pauperis that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

10

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little

11

available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the

12

court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Given that Plaintiff is a

13

prisoner proceeding pro se who has not paid the filing fee for this action, the court finds

14

monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion

15

of evidence or witnesses is not available.

16

considered in this case is without prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest

17

possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

18

However, inasmuch as the dismissal being

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always

19

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

20

III.

21
22
23

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of August 31, 2017.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

24

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

25

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff

26

may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

27

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

28

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
3

Within

1

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

2

(9th Cir. 1991)).

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 24, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4