(PC) Rios v. Spearman et al

Filing 32

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and the Clerk be directed to terminate any motions and close this case ; referred to Judge Ana de Alba, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 09/15/2022. (Objections to F&R due within 14-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISRAEL RIOS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:19-cv-1009-ADA-HBK (PC)

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY
WITH COURT ORDERS1

DR. CHINYERE NYENKE
FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review. As more fully set forth below,

19

the undersigned recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to

20

prosecute this action and timely comply with the Court’s orders.
I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff Rios, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se on his second amended civil rights

22
23

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 26, “SAC”). Plaintiff’s SAC, filed on August 13,

24

2021, alleges Defendant Dr. Chinyere Nyenke was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical

25

conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.). On July 28, 2022, the undersigned

26

screened Plaintiff’s SAC and found that it failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim for

27
1

28

This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302
(E.D. Cal. 2022).

1

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical condition. (Doc. No. 30). Plaintiff was given three

2

options to exercise within thirty (30) days from July 28, 2022: (1) file a Third Amended

3

Complaint (“TAC”); (2) file a notice that he intends to stand on his SAC subject to the

4

undersigned recommending the district court dismiss for reasons stated in the July 28, 2022

5

Screening Order; or (3) file a notice to voluntarily dismiss this action, without prejudice, under

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) because no defendant had yet been served. (Id. at 6-7).

7

The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that if he “fails to timely respond to this Court Order, i.e.,

8

fails to elect and notify the Court of any of the three options, the undersigned will recommend

9

that the district court dismiss this case as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court

10

order and for failing to prosecute this action after its determination that the complaint failed to

11

state a claim, which will count as strike under the PLRA.” (Id. at 7). The thirty-day deadline has

12

lapsed and Plaintiff has not elected any of the three options or otherwise moved for an extension

13

of time. (See generally docket).

14

II. APPLICABLE LAW

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action

16

when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ.

17

P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations

18

omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005)

19

(“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss

20

under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110 similarly

21

permits the court to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with any order of the court.

22

Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but it “is incumbent upon the Court to manage its

23

docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291

24

F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Before dismissing an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, the court

25

must consider: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

26

manage a docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendant; (4) public policy favoring disposition on

27

the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d

28

at 889 (noting that these five factors “must” be analyzed before a Rule 41 involuntary dismissal)
2

1

(emphasis added); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (reviewing

2

five factors and independently reviewing the record because district court did not make finding as

3

to each factor); but see Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (listing

4

the same five factors, but noting the court need not make explicit findings as to each) (emphasis

5

added); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of pro se §

6

1983 action when plaintiff did not amend caption to remove “et al” as the court directed and

7

reiterating that an explicit finding of each factor is not required by the district court).

8
9

III. ANALYSIS
The undersigned considers each of the above-stated factors and concludes dismissing this

10

case is warranted. The expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to be in the public interest,

11

satisfying the first factor. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990–91 (9th Cir. 1999).

12

Turning to the second factor, the Court’s need to efficiently manage its docket cannot be

13

overstated. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and due to unfilled

14

judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, operates under a

15

declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial

16

Emergency in the Eastern District of California. The Court’s time is better spent on its other

17

matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. Indeed, “trial

18

courts do not have time to waste on multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and

19

requirements of our courts.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 644 (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of

20

district court’s involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where petitioner failed to

21

timely respond to court order and noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon

22

the size and load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our

23

beleaguered trial judges.”). Delays have the inevitable and inherent risk that evidence will

24

become stale or witnesses' memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant,

25

thereby satisfying the third factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Attempting a

26

less drastic action would be futile because Rios was provided ample time to, at the minimum,

27

notify the court which of the three options from the July 28, 2022 Screening Order he would elect

28

and he has failed to do even the bare minimum. (See docket). Finally, the instant dismissal is a
3

1

dismissal without prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, thereby

2

addressing the fifth factor.

3

Considering these factors and those set forth supra, as well as binding case law, the

4

undersigned recommends dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local

5

Rule 110.

6

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

7

This case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and

8

the Clerk be directed to terminate any motions and close this case.

9

NOTICE TO PARTIES

10

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge

11

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)

12

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written

13

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

14

Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

15

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

16

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

17
18

Dated:

September 15, 2022
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4