Protzel v. Alaw et al
Filing
8
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/25/2015 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 4(m) and Local Rules 110 and 183(a). Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. 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
MONA PROTZEL,
12
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-01199-MCE-AC
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
ALAW, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. On June 3, 2015, defendants removed this
18
matter from El Dorado Superior Court based on federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1.
19
Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss on June 10, 2015. ECF No. 3. On July 24, 2015, the
20
court ordered plaintiff to show cause within fourteen (14) days why she failed to timely file an
21
opposition, to avoid having her claims dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
22
41(b) for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff has yet to respond to the court’s order to
23
show cause.
24
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may dismiss an action
25
for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to
26
comply with the court’s local rules, or failure to comply with the court’s orders. See, e.g.,
27
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte
28
to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest
1
1
Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that courts may dismiss an action pursuant
2
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply
3
with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260
4
(9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss
5
an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639,
6
642–43 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming district court’s dismissal of case for failure to prosecute when
7
habeas petitioner failed to file a first amended petition). This court’s Local Rules are in accord.
8
See E.D. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or a party to comply with these Rules or with any
9
order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized
10
by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”); E.D. Local Rule 183(a) (providing
11
that a pro se party’s failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s Local
12
Rules, and other applicable law may support, among other things, dismissal of that party’s
13
action).
14
A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to
15
prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local
16
rules. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. Specifically, the court must consider:
17
18
19
(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.
20
Id. at 1260–61; accord Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642–43; Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th
21
Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 838 (1995). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that
22
“[t]hese factors are not a series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything, but a
23
way for a district judge to think about what to do.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods.
24
Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).
25
Although involuntary dismissal can be a harsh remedy, on balance the five relevant
26
factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action. The first two factors strongly support dismissal
27
of this action. Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition and respond to this court’s order strongly
28
suggests that she has abandoned this action or is not interested in seriously prosecuting it. See,
2
1
e.g., Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in
2
expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”). Any further time spent by the
3
court on this case, which plaintiff has demonstrated a lack of any serious intention to pursue, will
4
consume scarce judicial resources and take away from other active cases. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
5
1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent power to manage their dockets without being
6
subject to noncompliant litigants).
7
In addition, the third factor, which considers prejudice to defendants, should be given
8
some weight. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Defendants California Reconveyance Company,
9
JPMorgan Chase Bank, and Washington Mutual Bank have all appeared and attempted to defend
10
themselves in this action. Plaintiff; however, has not shown any interest in prosecuting it,
11
preventing defendants from resolving this case on the merits through unreasonable delay.
12
Unreasonable delay is presumed to be prejudicial. See, e.g., In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)
13
Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d at 1227.
14
The fifth factor, which considers the availability of less drastic measures, also supports
15
dismissal of this action. The court has already pursued remedies that are less drastic than a
16
recommendation of dismissal, including providing plaintiff with the opportunity to remedy her
17
failure to file an opposition. See Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132 (9th Cir. 1987)
18
(“[E]xplicit discussion of alternatives is unnecessary if the district court actually tries alternatives
19
before employing the ultimate sanction of dismissal.”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988). Having
20
failed to receive a response from plaintiff, the court finds no suitable alternative to a
21
recommendation for dismissal of this action.
22
The court also recognizes the importance of giving due weight to the fourth factor, which
23
addresses the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits. However, for the reasons
24
set forth above, factors one, two, three, and five strongly support a recommendation of dismissal
25
of this action, and factor four does not materially counsel otherwise. Dismissal is proper “where
26
at least four factors support dismissal or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.”
27
Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations and quotation marks
28
omitted). Under the circumstances of this case, the other relevant factors outweigh the general
3
1
public policy favoring disposition of actions on their merits. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263.
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
3
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 4(m) and Local Rules 110 and
4
183(a).
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. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
9
Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within
10
fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
11
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
12
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
DATED: September 25, 2015
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?