Watkins v. Tuolumne County et al
Filing
10
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that this Case be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Prosecute, and Failure to Comply with a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 10/29/2019. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 11/18/2019.(Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
Case No. 1:18-cv-00787-JDP
RAYMOND C. WATKINS,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT CASE BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH A COURT ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al.,
15
OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action pursuant
19
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 2, 2019, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and found that he failed
20
to state a claim. ECF No. 9. I ordered plaintiff to amend his complaint and warned that failure to
21
comply with the order would result in dismissal of this action. See id. at 6. Plaintiff has not filed
22
an amended complaint.
23
The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a
24
court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d
25
683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a court has a duty to
26
resolve disputes expeditiously. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642
27
(9th Cir. 2002).
28
1
1
In considering whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, a court ordinarily
2
considers five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
3
court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy
4
favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”
5
Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779
6
F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). The fourth factor weighs against dismissal. But dismissal
7
would promote expeditious resolution, see Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642, and would allow our
8
overburdened court to manage its docket more effectively. Further delay increases the risk that
9
memories will fade and evidence will be lost, and at this stage in the proceeding there is no
10
satisfactory lesser sanction that would protect the court’s scarce resources. Therefore, I find that
11
the first, second, third, and fifth factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and I recommend dismissal
12
without prejudice on that basis.
13
As more thoroughly discussed in my screening order, plaintiff has failed to state a claim
14
against defendants, which provides an additional basis for dismissing this case. See ECF No. 9.
15
Order
16
The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge, who will preside over
17
this case. The undersigned will remain as the magistrate judge assigned to the case.
18
Recommendations
19
I recommend that the case be dismissed for plaintiff’s failures to state a claim, prosecute,
20
and comply with a court order. I submit these findings and recommendations to the U.S. district
21
judge presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within
22
fourteen days of the service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written
23
objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties.
24
The document containing the objections must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
25
Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and
26
recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
27
28
2
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
Dated:
October 29, 2019
4
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
No. 204
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?