Alston v. City of Elk Grove et al
Filing
50
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/8/2012 RECOMMENDING that the action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) based on plaintiff's failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with court orders. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CD ALSTON
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
No. 2:11-cv-0678 KJM CKD PS
vs.
CITY OF ELK GROVE et al.
14
Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/
15
16
This action, originally filed on March 11, 2011, was referred to the undersigned
17
pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff is proceeding in this
18
action pro se and in forma pauperis.
19
On December 12, 2011, the court issued an order setting status conference, which
20
scheduled a status (pretrial scheduling) conference in this matter for May 9, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in
21
courtroom no. 26 before the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 29 at 2.) That same order directed the
22
parties to file status reports no later than 14 days prior to the status conference. (Id.) Although
23
plaintiff filed a status report on April 23, 2012 specifically referencing the May 9, 2012
24
conference (dkt. no. 38), plaintiff failed to appear at the conference.
25
26
Consequently, the court issued an order on May 9, 2012 requiring plaintiff to
show cause within 14 days why monetary sanctions (in particular, defendants’ counsel’s fees and
1
1
costs for appearing at the status conference for which plaintiff failed to appear) should not be
2
imposed. (Dkt. No. 42.) Plaintiff was further cautioned that failure to respond to the order to
3
show cause may result in the imposition of further and increasingly severe sanctions, including
4
dismissal of the case. (Dkt. No. 42.) In turn, defendants’ counsel was ordered to submit a
5
declaration outlining all fees and costs reasonably incurred with respect to her appearance at the
6
May 9, 2012 status conference, which defendants’ counsel filed on May 15, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 42,
7
46.)
Plaintiff failed to respond to this first order to show cause. Therefore, on May 24,
8
9
2012, the court ordered plaintiff to pay defendants’ counsel sanctions in the amount of $160.00,
10
defendants’ counsel’s fees associated with appearing at the May 9, 2012 status conference, which
11
the court found reasonable. (Dkt. No. 49.) The court further noted that, given plaintiff’s failure
12
to appear at the status conference and her failure to comply with and respond to the court’s
13
orders, it appeared that plaintiff had abandoned prosecution of the case. (Dkt. No. 49.) As such,
14
the court issued a second order to show cause, providing plaintiff with a final opportunity to
15
explain within fourteen (14) days of that order why the case should not be dismissed with
16
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case and comply
17
with court orders. (Dkt. No. 49.)1 Although the applicable fourteen (14) day period has now
18
expired, plaintiff failed to file any response to the court’s second order to show cause.
In light of plaintiff’s failures, the undersigned will recommend that this action be
19
20
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute the action and for failure to comply with court
21
orders. Although the court liberally construes the pleadings of pro se litigants, they are required
22
to adhere to the rules of court and to comply with court orders. Here, defendants are prejudiced
23
by the requirement of defending an essentially abandoned case. Additionally, this court is put in
24
25
26
1
Because plaintiff was granted electronic filing privileges (dkt. no. 26), both the May 9,
2012 order to show cause and the May 24, 2012 order to show cause were served on plaintiff via email and U.S. Mail.
2
1
the untenable position of expending limited judicial resources on a case in which plaintiff
2
without explanation fails to appear at a court-ordered conference and respond to court orders.
3
Furthermore, the court finds that less drastic sanctions are inappropriate, because as outlined
4
above, the court has already imposed monetary sanctions without success. The public’s interest
5
in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the unsuitability
6
of a less drastic sanction thus direct that the action should be dismissed. Moreover, plaintiff has
7
been provided with several opportunities to provide exculpatory reasons for her noncompliance
8
and has failed to do so.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
9
1. The action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) based
10
11
on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with court orders, and
12
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
13
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
14
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
15
(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
16
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
17
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
18
shall be served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The parties are
19
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
20
District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
21
Dated: June 8, 2012
22
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
CKD/5
alston.678.fr.wpd
26
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?