Engelbrecht v. Ripa

Filing 14

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending as follows: 1) This action be dismissed without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this case and failure to comply with the Court's order dated August 21, 2018, (ECF No. 11 ); an d 2) The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. These recommendations are referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, with objections due within fourteen days after service of this order. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/9/2018. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TONYA D. ENGELBRECHT,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

v.
KELLY RIPA,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01339-LJO-EPG
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 11)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

19
20

Tonya D. Engelbrecht (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

21

action. On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint alleging

22

claims of torture, defamation, breach of contract, and violations of the California Welfare and

23

Institution Code against Kelly Ripa (“Defendant”), owner of Milojo Productions. (ECF No. 1).

24

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim of breach of contract as alleged in her First

25

Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF Nos. 8, 10).

26

On August 21, 2018, the Court found service of the FAC appropriate, and directed

27

Plaintiff to complete and return service documents within thirty days. (ECF No. 11). The thirty-

28

day deadline has expired, and Plaintiff has not completed and returned the service documents.
1

1

Plaintiff has, thus, failed to comply with a court order, and has failed to otherwise prosecute this

2

action.

3

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

4

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110;

5

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471,

6

474 (9th Cir. 1979)) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Malone v. United States

7

Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 134 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

8

“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with

9

a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public=s interest in expeditious

10

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

11

defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy

12

favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir.

13

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

14

The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage

15

its docket always favor dismissal. Id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983,

16

990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Thus, these factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

17
18

The public policy favoring disposition on the merits always weighs against dismissal. Id.
Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal.

19

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

20

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. at 642 (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). However, “delay

21

inherently increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@

22

id. at 643, and it is Plaintiff's failure to complete and return the service documents that is causing

23

delay. The case is now stalled until Plaintiff completes and returns the service documents.

24

Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

25

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

26

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

27

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Monetary sanctions are of

28

little use, considering Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, and given the stage of these
2

1

proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. Additionally, because the

2

dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of using

3

the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

4
5
6

After weighing the factors, including the Court’s need to manage its docket, the Court
finds that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

7

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to

8

prosecute this case and failure to comply with the Court’s order dated August 21,

9

2018, (ECF No. 11); and

10

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

11

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to the

12

case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served

13

with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court.

14

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

15

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

16

may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.

17

2014) (quoting Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 9, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3