Williams et al v. Canning et al
Filing
22
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/13/13 RECOMMENDING that 6 MOTION to DISMISS renoticed for hearing as 9 MOTION to DISMISS be denied as moot; 15 MOTION to STRIKE be denied as moot; plaintiffs ' claims be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of prosecution, as evidenced by plaintiffs' failure to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss; and that this case be closed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Meuleman, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
SANDRA WILLIAMS, and KAREN
BURTON,
13
14
Plaintiffs,
No. 2:13-cv-0631 GEB DAD PS
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
v.
15
JOSEPH M. CANNING, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiffs Sandra Williams and Karen Burton are each proceeding pro se in this
19
action. The action has therefore been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule
20
302(c)(21) for all purposes encompassed by that rule.
21
This matter came before the court on July 19, 2013, for hearing of defendants’
22
motion to dismiss. Joseph M. Canning, Esq. appeared for the defendants. Despite being served
23
with notice of the motion neither plaintiff filed written opposition or a statement of non-
24
opposition to the motion to dismiss and neither plaintiff appeared at the hearing of the motion, nor
25
did anyone appear on behalf of either plaintiff.
26
Accordingly, in an order filed July 22, 2013, the undersigned ordered plaintiffs to
27
show cause in writing within twenty-one days as to why this action should not be dismissed for
28
lack of prosecution. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiffs were cautioned that failure to file a written
1
1
response to that order would result in the undersigned recommending that this matter be
2
dismissed. (Id. at 2.)
On August 16, 2013, plaintiff Sandra Williams filed a “NOTICE OF STAY OF
3
4
LITIGATION PENDING FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.” (Doc. No. 20.)
5
Therein, plaintiff Williams asserts that on May 21, 2013, the United States Department of
6
Treasury Internal Revenue Service “seized and sealed Plaintiff’s records pursuant to federal
7
criminal investigations of the Defendants.” (Id. at 2.) Moreover, Williams alleges that “Plaintiffs
8
are currently under the supervision and control of the federal criminal agencies and federal law
9
enforcements” and “are not authorized to continue this litigation at this time, pursuant to the
10
pending federal criminal investigations and cases.” (Id.) Accordingly, “Plaintiffs have been
11
advised to Stay this litigation, pending the federal criminal investigation” and, therefore, seek a
12
stay of this action. (Id.)
13
Plaintiff Williams, however, has submitted no evidence to substantiate her claims
14
concerning the seizure of her records or her involvement in a pending criminal investigation
15
related to this matter. Moreover, it appears from plaintiffs’ repeated failure to respond to
16
defendants’ motion to dismiss, and from plaintiff Williams’ August 16, 2013 filing, that plaintiffs
17
do not intend to prosecute this civil action.1 Accordingly, the undersigned finds that plaintiffs
18
have failed to show good cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of
19
prosecution.
20
ANALYSIS
21
The factors to be weighed in determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of
22
prosecution are as follows: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
23
court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy
24
favoring disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Hernandez v.
25
City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260
26
1
27
28
On August 9, 2013 defendant Robert J. Jackson & Associates, Inc., filed a motion to strike
plaintiff’s complaint, and the matter is set for hearing before the undersigned on September 20,
2013. (Doc. Nos. 15, 17 & 18). Although it appears that plaintiffs were served with notice of the
motion, once again neither plaintiff has filed a timely statement of opposition or non-opposition.
2
1
(9th Cir. 1992); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Dismissal is a harsh penalty
2
that should be imposed only in extreme circumstances. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 398; Ferdik, 963
3
F.2d at 1260.
4
Under the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the
5
Eastern District of California, opposition, if any, to the granting of a motion “shall be in writing
6
and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued)
7
hearing date.” Local Rule 230(c). “No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a
8
motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” Id.
9
Failure to appear at the hearing of a properly noticed motion may, in the discretion of the court,
10
be deemed withdrawal of any written opposition that was timely filed, or may result in sanctions.
11
Local Rule 230(i).
12
Failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or any order of the court “may
13
be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or
14
within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or
15
herself without an attorney is nonetheless bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
16
Local Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). A party’s failure to comply with
17
applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the
18
Local Rules. Id.
Here, plaintiffs failed to file a timely response to defendants’ motion to dismiss
19
20
and failed to appear at the hearing of the properly noticed motion, in violation of multiple
21
provisions of Local Rule 230. The court issued an order to show cause that provided plaintiffs
22
with yet another opportunity to show good cause for their failure to respond to defendants’
23
motion. Although plaintiff Sandra Williams responded, her response failed to show good cause
24
and implied that plaintiffs do not intend to prosecute this action. Plaintiff Karen Burton failed to
25
respond in any way. The court’s order to show cause warned plaintiffs that failure to file a
26
written response to the order to show cause would result in a recommendation that this matter be
27
dismissed.
28
/////
3
Plaintiffs’ lack of prosecution of this case renders the imposition of monetary
1
2
sanctions futile, and the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to
3
manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant all support the sanction of dismissal.
4
Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against dismissal. However,
5
plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute the action in any way makes disposition on the merits an
6
impossibility. The undersigned will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed due to
7
plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute as well as their failure to comply with the court’s orders. See FED.
8
R. CIV. P. 41(b).
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendants’ May 8, 2013 motion to dismiss (Doc. No 6), re-noticed for hearing
10
11
before the undersigned on June 10, 2013, (Doc. No. 9) be denied as moot;
2. Defendant Jackson’s August 9, 2013 motion to strike (Doc. No. 15) be denied
12
13
as moot2;
3. Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of prosecution, as
14
15
evidenced by plaintiffs’ failure to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion to
16
dismiss filed on behalf of the defendants, failure to appear at the hearing of the motion to dismiss,
17
and failure to show good cause; and
18
4. This case be closed.
19
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States
20
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
21
fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may
22
file written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled
23
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to objections
24
shall be filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that
25
/////
26
2
27
28
The hearing of defendant Jackson’s motion to strike is dropped from the court’s September 20,
2013 calendar. In the event these findings and recommendations are not adopted by the assigned
District Judge, defendant Jackson may re-notice the motion to strike for hearing before the
undersigned.
4
1
failure to file objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the
2
right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
Dated: September 13, 2013
4
5
6
7
8
DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\williams0631.dlop.f&rs.docx
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?