Mcafee v. Parkway Inn Motel et al

Filing 5

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a Court Order re 1 Complaint filed by Curtis Mcafee ; referred to Judge Drozd,signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/21/17. Objections to F&R due by 12/18/2017 (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CURTIS MCAFEE, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:17 -cv-01372-DAD-SAB FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER v. PARKWAY INN MOTEL, et al., Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTYONE DAYS 16 17 Plaintiff Curtis Mcafee (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 action, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 12, 2017. (ECF No. 19 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 17, 2017, Plaintiff’s complaint was screened by the undersigned and an order 22 was filed dismissing the complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 4.) 23 Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the October 17, 2017 24 order. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 25 otherwise responded to the October 17, 2017 order. 26 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 27 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 28 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 1 1 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 2 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 3 2000). 4 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 5 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 6 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 7 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 8 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 9 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 10 United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 11 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 12 of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 13 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a pretrial order, 14 the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 15 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 16 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 17 sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 18 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in 19 deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. 20 Id. (citation omitted). 21 In this instance the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the 22 Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. Plaintiff was ordered to file 23 an amended complaint within thirty days of October 17, 2017. Plaintiff has been provided with 24 the legal standards that would apply to his claims and the opportunity to file an amended 25 complaint. Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor otherwise responded to the 26 Court’s order. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the orders of the Court hinders the Court’s 27 ability to move this action towards disposition, and indicates that Plaintiff does not intend to 28 diligently litigate this action. 2 1 Since it appears that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently there arises a 2 rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants in this action. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 3 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). This risk of prejudice may be rebutted if Plaintiff offers an excuse for 4 the delay. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1453. The risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in 5 favor of dismissal. 6 The public policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits is greatly outweighed by the 7 factors in favor of dismissal. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move this action forward. This 8 action can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at 9 issue, and the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. In this 10 instance, the fourth factor does not outweigh Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders. 11 Finally, a court’s warning to a party that their failure to obey the court’s order will result 12 in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 13 Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s October 17, 2017 order 14 requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint expressly stated: “If Plaintiff fails to file an 15 amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to state a 16 claim.” (ECF No. 4 at 6:19-20.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would 17 result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order and his failure to state a claim. 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for 1 2 Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a court order. This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this 3 4 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within twenty5 one (21) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this 6 findings and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will 8 review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 9 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 10 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 11 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: November 21, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?