(PC) Solis v. Fresno County Sheriff's Department et al
Filing
31
ORDER DISMISSING Action without prejudice, because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with Court Orders and to Prosecute this case, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/3/2021. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)
Case 1:20-cv-00048-EPG Document 31 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
ADALBERTO SOLIS,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
v.
Case No. 1:20-cv-00048-EPG (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDERS AND TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE
PORTILLO,
Defendant.
(ECF Nos. 27 & 30)
15
16
Adalberto Solis (“Plaintiff”) is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have
18
consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction and the case has been assigned to the undersigned
19
“for all further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment.” (ECF No. 29).
20
On May 21, 2021, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to submit scheduling
21
and discovery statements within thirty days. (ECF No. 27). On June 21, 2021, Defendant filed
22
his scheduling and discovery statement. (ECF No. 28-1). Plaintiff did not file his statement,
23
and his deadline to do so passed. Accordingly, on August 9, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff
24
to file his statement. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff was warned that “[f]ailure to comply with this
25
order may result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id. at 2).
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s deadline to file his statement has once again passed and Plaintiff once again
failed to file his statement.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this case, without prejudice, because of Plaintiff’s
1
Case 1:20-cv-00048-EPG Document 31 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 3
1
2
failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute this case.
“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] for failure to prosecute or failure to
3
comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest
4
in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
5
prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the
6
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
7
639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
8
“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.’”
9
Id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly,
10
11
this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
As to the Court’s need to manage its docket, “[t]he trial judge is in the best position to
12
determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with docket management and the
13
public interest…. It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to
14
routine noncompliance of litigants....” Id. Here, Plaintiff’s failure to file a scheduling
15
conference statement as required by the Court’s orders and to otherwise prosecute this action is
16
delaying the case. Specifically, the scheduling statement is an important document for the
17
Court to use in making the schedule in this case. It also includes important information for the
18
parties, such as “the location of potentially relevant documents,” and “when the parties will be
19
prepared to participate in a settlement conference.” Plaintiff’s failure to file his statement has
20
delayed this Court’s ability to issue a scheduling order for over two months already, and
21
Plaintiff still has not filed his statement. And without being able to issue a scheduling order,
22
this case is stalled from progressing further with discovery and other case-related deadlines.
23
Therefore, the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
24
Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in
25
and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). However, “delay
26
inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become
27
stale,” id. at 643, and it is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and to prosecute this
28
case that is causing delay and preventing this case from progressing. Therefore, the third factor
2
Case 1:20-cv-00048-EPG Document 31 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 3
1
weighs in favor of dismissal.
2
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, given that Plaintiff has chosen not to
3
prosecute this action and has failed to comply with the Court’s orders, despite being warned of
4
possible dismissal, there is little available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory
5
lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce
6
resources. Considering Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, it appears that monetary sanctions
7
are of little use. And as it appears that Plaintiff has decided to stop prosecuting this case,
8
excluding evidence would be a meaningless sanction. Additionally, because the dismissal
9
being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of using the
10
11
12
13
14
harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor weighs
against dismissal. Id.
After weighing the factors, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is
appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
15
1. This case is dismissed, without prejudice, because of Plaintiff’s failure to
16
comply with court orders and to prosecute this case; and
17
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 3, 2021
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?