Villegas v. C.C.H.C.S. et al

Filing 33

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Case for Plaintiff's Failures to Prosecute and to Comply with Court Orders, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/13/19. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS VILLEGAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
D. ROBERTS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01326-AWI-JDP
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURES TO PROSECUTE AND TO
COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN FOURTEEN
DAYS

16
17
18
Plaintiff Luis Villegas is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights

19
20

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 5, 2019, defendant Medina moved for

21

summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

22

before filing suit. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff had twenty-one days to oppose defendant’s motion

23

under Local Rule 230(l), but he failed to do so. Instead of opposing defendant’s motion, plaintiff

24

moved for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 31. On April 3, 2019, the court denied

25

plaintiff’s motion and ordered him to respond to defendant’s motion for summary judgment

26

within twenty-one days. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff failed to respond, thereby disobeying the court’s

27

order.

28

The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a
1

1

court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d

2

683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has duties

3

to resolve disputes expeditiously and to avoid needless burden for the parties. See

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002).

5

In considering whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, a court ordinarily

6

considers five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

7

court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

8

favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”

9

Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779

10

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)). These heuristic factors merely guide the court’s inquiry; they

11

are not conditions precedent for dismissal. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products

12

Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).

13

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

14

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Yourish v. California

15

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of

16

dismissal.

17

Turning to the risk of prejudice, pendency of a lawsuit, on its own, is not sufficiently

18

prejudicial to warrant dismissal. Id. (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). However, delay inherently

19

increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale, id. at 643,

20

and it is plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor

21

weighs in favor of dismissal.

22

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

23

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

24

from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Monetary sanctions are of little use,

25

considering plaintiff’s apparent inability to pay the filing fee, and—given the stage of these

26

proceedings—the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. Accordingly, the fourth

27

factor also weighs in favor of dismissal.

28
2

1
2

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor weighs against
dismissal. Id.
After weighing the factors, including the court’s need to manage its docket, the court finds

3
4

that dismissal is appropriate. The court recommends dismissal without prejudice.

5

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6

The court recommends that the case be dismissed for plaintiff’s failures to prosecute and

7

comply with court orders. The undersigned submits these findings and recommendations to the

8

U.S. district judge presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304.

9

Within 14 days of the service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written

10

objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties.

11

The document containing the objections must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

12

Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and

13

recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties’ failure to file objections within

14

the specified time may waive their rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839

15

(9th Cir. 2014).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
Dated:
19

May 13, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22

No. 203

23
24
25
26
27
28
3