Pierce v. Trump et al

Filing 5

Findings and Recommendations to dismiss action, with prejudice, for failure to obey Court orders and failure to prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/17/2018. Matter referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due by 2/5/2018. (Rosales, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GERALDINE PIERCE,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01603-DAD-BAM
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS AND
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
(Doc. No. 3)

14

Defendants.
FOURTEEN -DAY DEADLINE

15
16

Plaintiff Geraldine Pierce, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on December 4,

17

2017, by filing both a complaint and a motion requesting an opportunity to be heard, to e-file, and

18

for judicial notice. (Doc. Nos. 1 and 2.) Plaintiff Geraldine Pierce did not pay the requisite filing

19

fee for the action or an application to procced in forma pauperis.

20

On December 7, 2017, the Court determined that neither the complaint nor the

21

accompanying motion was signed by Plaintiff Geraldine Pierce. 1 Therefore, the Court struck the

22

documents from the record and directed Plaintiff Geraldine Pierce, within thirty days following

23

service of the order to (1) file a signed complaint (or notice of voluntary dismissal) and (2) file an

24

application to proceed in forma paupers or pay the $400 filing fee for this action. (Doc. No. 3.)

25

1

26
27
28

The complaint was signed by purported co-plaintiff, Seavon Pierce, a state prisoner, and challenged the
dismissal of Mr. Pierce’s prior action, Seavon Pierce v. Fernando Gonzales, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00285-JLT. As
neither the requisite filing fee nor an application to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied the complaint, the Court
determined that Mr. Pierce was attempting to avoid the three-strike provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) by having
Geraldine Pierce file this action. Mr. Pierce was admonished that pleadings and other papers presented for any
improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay, may result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (Doc. No. 3 at p. 2, n. 1.)

1

The Court advised Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order would result in a

2

recommendation for dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to

3

obey a court order. (Id.)

4

The deadline for Plaintiff to file a signed complaint, an application to proceed in forma

5

pauperis or to pay the filing fee has passed, and she has not complied with the Court’s order.2

6

Accordingly, the Court will recommend dismissal of this action with prejudice.

7

I.

8

Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey a Court Order
A. Legal Standards

9

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with

10

any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .

11

within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their

12

dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where

13

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court

14

may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to

15

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

16

53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

17

1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

18

amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987)

19

(dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

20

In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors:

21

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its

22

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

23

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779

24

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).

25
26
27
28

2

On January 4, 2018, Mr. Seavon Pierce filed a notice in this action indicating that a suit had been filed in
the Central District of California against the federal court and against federal judges in Case Number 1:1000285(JLT). Mr. Pierce also submitted several exhibits, including a purported summons, an unexecuted proof of
service and a notice of judge assignment for the Central District action. (Doc. No. 4.) Mr. Pierce’s filing does not
comply with the Court’s December 7, 2017 order.

2

1

B. Discussion

2

Here, Plaintiff’s signed complaint is overdue, and she has been otherwise non-responsive

3

to the Court’s order directing her to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the

4

filing fee. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating her case.

5

Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

6

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a

7

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action.

8

Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against

9

dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d

10

639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility

11

it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that

12

direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d

13

1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

14

Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in

15

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;

16

Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s December 7, 2017 order

17

expressly warned Plaintiff that her failure to file a signed complaint or otherwise comply would

18

result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute

19

and failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 3 at pp. 2-3.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning

20

that dismissal could result from her noncompliance.

21

Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that

22

would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further

23

unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff has not filed an operative complaint or

24

responded to the Court, making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or

25

witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating her case.

26

II.

27

For the reasons explained above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

28

Conclusion and Recommendation

dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.
3

1

These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

2

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

3

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written

4

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

5

Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

6

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual

7

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.

8

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 17, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4