(PC) Roberts v. Kern Valley State Prison et al

Filing 19

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this Case be Dismissed, Without Prejudice, for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/06/2023. Referred to Judge De Alba. Objections to F&R due by 5/26/2023. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID NATHANIEL ROBERTS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON,
et al.,

15

1:22-cv-01505-ADA-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 18.)

Defendants.

16

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE ON OR BEFORE
MAY 26, 2023

17
18
19

I.

David Nathaniel Roberts (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

20
21

BACKGROUND

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22

On March 21, 2023, the Court issued an order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

23

status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and requiring Plaintiff to pay the $402.00 filing fee for this case

24

in full within 30 days. (ECF No. 18.) To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or otherwise

25

responded to the Court’s order, and the time for doing so has passed.

26

II.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

27

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set

28

forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in
1

1

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

2

prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the

3

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639,

4

642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

5

“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’”

6

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the

7

action has been pending since September 12, 2022. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s

8

order may reflect Plaintiff’s refusal or inability to pay the filing fee. However, the Court cannot

9

continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not comply with the Court’s

10

orders. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

11

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in

12

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently

13

increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it

14

is Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee for this case that is causing delay. Therefore, the third

15

factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

16

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little

17

available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the

18

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Monetary sanctions in this

19

circumstance are of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of

20

evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in

21

this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction

22

of dismissal with prejudice.

23

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always

24

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

25

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

26

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed,

27

without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s order of March 21, 2023. These

28

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the
2

1

case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). On or before May 26, 2023,

2

Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

4

failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

5

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

6

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 6, 2023

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3