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
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?