Ramagoza et al v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation et al
Filing
6
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/10/2014 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on plaintiffs' failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with court orders. The Clerk of Court be directed to vacate all dates and close this case. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CESAR R. RAMAGOZA, et al.,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-311-LKK-KJN PS
Plaintiffs,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiffs Cesar R. Ramagoza, Maylene F. Ramagoza, and Desiree R. Arboleda,
19
proceeding without counsel, commenced this action on January 30, 2014, and paid the filing fee.
20
(ECF No. 1.)
21
That same day, the court issued an “Order Setting Status Conference.” (ECF No. 2.) The
22
order directed plaintiffs to “complete service of process on defendants named in the complaint
23
within 120 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is cautioned that this action may be
24
dismissed if service of process is not accomplished within 120 days from the date that the
25
complaint is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).” (Id. at 1.)
26
That same order set a status (pre-trial scheduling) conference for June 19, 2014, at 10:00
27
a.m., and stated that “[a]ll parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting without counsel.”
28
(ECF No. 2 at 2.) The order also directed the parties to file a status report addressing specific
1
1
topics no later than seven (7) days prior to the status conference. (Id. at 2-3.) The order
2
specifically cautioned that “[f]ailing to obey federal or local rules, or [an] order of this court, may
3
result in dismissal of this action. This court will construe pro se pleadings liberally, but pro se
4
litigants must comply with the procedural rules.” (Id. at 3.)
5
No status report was filed prior to the June 19, 2014 status conference, and plaintiffs failed
6
to appear at the status conference. Additionally, the court’s records indicate that no defendant has
7
yet appeared in this case, and there has been no docket activity by any party since the initial filing
8
of the complaint. This strongly suggests that plaintiffs have not yet served defendants with
9
process, even though the 120-day period for service of process has expired. After the status
10
conference, the court considered whether the action should be dismissed given plaintiffs’
11
numerous failures. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiffs’ pro se status and the court’s general
12
preference to resolve actions on their merits, the court first attempted lesser sanctions.
13
On June 20, 2014, the court issued an order requiring plaintiffs, within fourteen (14) days
14
of the order, to each pay the Clerk of Court $250.00 in monetary sanctions based on their failure
15
to appear at the status conference and failure to comply with court orders. (ECF No. 5.) The
16
court also directed plaintiffs, within fourteen (14) days of the order, to show cause in writing why
17
the case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on their
18
failure to prosecute the case and failure to comply with court orders. (Id.) Plaintiffs were
19
expressly cautioned that failure to pay the monetary sanctions imposed and file a response to the
20
order to show cause by the required deadline would result in a recommendation that the action be
21
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Id.)1
22
Although the deadline for paying the monetary sanctions and responding to the order to
23
show cause has now passed, plaintiffs failed to do either. As such, the court now recommends
24
1
25
26
27
28
The court notes that its orders have not thus far been returned as undeliverable. Nevertheless,
even if they had been, it is plaintiffs’ duty to keep the court informed of their current address(es),
and service of the court’s orders at the address on record was effective absent the filing of a
notice of change of address. In relevant part, Local Rule 182(f) provides: “Each appearing
attorney and pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any
change of address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice,
service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.”
2
1
dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute
2
the action and failure to comply with court orders.
3
Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply
4
with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of
5
any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”
6
Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:
7
8
9
10
Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney
is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these
Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on
“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria
persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal,
judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these
Rules.
11
See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the
12
same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). Case law is in
13
accord that a district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s
14
case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his
15
or her case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the
16
court’s local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a
17
court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation
18
Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss
19
an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to
20
prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46
21
F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a
22
proper ground for dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)
23
(“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for
24
failure to comply with any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782
25
F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to
26
control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal or default).
27
28
A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to
prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local
3
1
rules. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. Specifically, the court must consider:
2
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of
less drastic alternatives.
3
4
5
Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002); Ghazali v.
6
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that
7
“[t]hese factors are not a series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything, but a
8
way for a district judge to think about what to do.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods.
9
Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).
10
Here, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to
11
manage its docket clearly militate in favor of dismissal of this case, in which plaintiffs have failed
12
to respond to and comply with the court’s orders, and failed to take the steps necessary to move
13
the case forward.
14
Also, even though it is unlikely that defendants have suffered any significant prejudice to
15
date, they continue to be named as defendants in a civil action that plaintiffs have effectively
16
abandoned. Thus, at a minimum, defendants, who may be unaware of this action, have been
17
unable to defend their interests and move the action towards a resolution.
18
Furthermore, the court has already attempted less drastic alternatives to a recommendation
19
of dismissal. In particular, the court first imposed monetary sanctions and issued an order to
20
show cause, giving plaintiffs an opportunity to explain why their case should not be dismissed.
21
However, as noted above, plaintiffs entirely failed to respond to the court’s orders. Given
22
plaintiffs’ demonstrated unwillingness to comply with court orders, the imposition of additional
23
monetary sanctions would likely be futile, and based on the present record, the court is unable to
24
frame any other type of evidentiary or issue sanctions.
25
Finally, although the court is cognizant of the public policy favoring disposition of cases
26
on their merits, the court finds that this factor is outweighed by the other Ferdik factors. Indeed,
27
it is plaintiffs’ own failure to prosecute the case and comply with court orders that preclude a
28
resolution on the merits.
4
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
2
1. The action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on
3
plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with court orders.
4
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to vacate all dates and close this case.
5
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
6
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)
7
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
8
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
9
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
10
shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the
11
objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
12
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th
13
Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
14
15
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Dated: July 10, 2014
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?