Guevara v. Superior Court County of San Mateo et al
Filing
12
ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign District Judge to Action; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to Pay Filing Fee or File Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Failure to Obey Court Orders, and F ailure to Prosecute re 3 , 10 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/20/18. This case is assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The New Case No. is: 1:18-cv-0871-DAD-BAM. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
JOSE TIMOTEO GUEVARA,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:18-cv-00871-BAM (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO
ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR FILE
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, FAILURE TO OBEY COURT
ORDERS, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF Nos. 3, 10)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Jose Timoteo Guevara (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this
20
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 11, 2018, in
21
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) That same
22
date, the Northern District issued an order directing Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed
23
in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within twenty-eight days. (ECF No. 3.) On June 21, 2018,
24
the case was transferred to this district. (ECF No. 6.)
25
On July 19, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff, within twenty-one (21) days, to submit a
26
completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the $400.00 filing fee, or show cause in
27
writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court
28
order. (ECF No. 10.) The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s order has expired, and
1
1
Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee, or otherwise
2
responded to the Court’s order.
3
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of
4
that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v.
5
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
6
prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure
7
to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995)
8
(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th
9
Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);
10
Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
11
comply with court order).
12
In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors:
13
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its
14
docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
15
cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779
16
F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988); see also In
17
re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006)
18
(standards governing dismissal for failure to comply with court orders). These factors guide a
19
court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take
20
action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).
21
The Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the
22
Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been pending
23
since June 2018 and can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with
24
the Court’s orders. Moreover, the matter cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket,
25
unprosecuted, awaiting Plaintiff’s compliance. Indeed, a civil action may not proceed absent the
26
submission of either the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C.
27
§§ 1914, 1915. As for the risk of prejudice, the law presumes prejudice from unreasonable delay.
28
In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227–28. Regarding the fourth factor, while public policy favors
2
1
disposition on the merits and therefore weighs against dismissal, it is Plaintiff’s own conduct
2
which is at issue here and which has stalled the case. Id. at 1228. Finally, there are no alternative
3
sanctions which are satisfactory. A monetary sanction has little to no benefit in a case in which
4
Plaintiff has ceased responding to the Court’s orders. Further, Plaintiff was warned that his
5
failure to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee would result in
6
dismissal of this action. (ECF Nos. 3, 10.) A warning that the failure to obey a court order will
7
result in dismissal can meet the consideration of alternatives requirement. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at
8
1229.
9
10
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a
district judge to this action.
11
Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without
12
prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma
13
pauperis, failure to obey Court orders, and failure to prosecute.
14
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
15
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
16
(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
17
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
18
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
19
specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
20
findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
21
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
August 20, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?