Sierra v. Director of CDCR et al

Filing 99

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/15/2022 DENYING 98 Motion for Extension of Time and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH ALAN SIERRA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 16-cv-1067 MCE KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

16

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that

20

this action be dismissed.

21

Background

22

On May 5, 2017, the court denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

23

ordered plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 64.) On April 27, 2021, the

24

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the May 5, 2017 order and remanded this action. (ECF

25

No. 87.) On May 19, 2021, the mandate was issued. (ECF No. 88.)

26

On August 24, 2021, the undersigned issued an order screening plaintiff’s second

27

amended complaint. (ECF No. 90.) The undersigned granted plaintiff thirty days to file a second

28

amended complaint or a notice stating that he intended to proceed on the potentially colorable
1

1

claims raised in the first amended complaint. (Id.) The undersigned ordered that failure to

2

respond to the August 24, 2021 order would result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure to

3

prosecute. (Id.)

4

Following the filing of the August 24, 2021 order, the court received two telephone calls

5

from plaintiff. In these telephone calls, plaintiff stated that he had difficulty filing a written

6

request for extension of time. Plaintiff verbally requested an extension of time to respond to the

7

August 24, 2021 order.

8
9

On September 24, 2021, the undersigned issued an order stating that the court was unable
to grant verbal requests for extensions of time. (ECF No. 91.) However, because plaintiff

10

represented that he intended to prosecute this action, the undersigned granted plaintiff an

11

extension of thirty days to file a response to the August 24, 2021 order. (Id.)

12

Thirty days passed from September 24, 2021, and plaintiff did not file a response to the

13

August 24, 2021 order. Accordingly, on November 4, 2021, the undersigned recommended that

14

this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 92.)

15

On November 15, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty-days extension of time. (ECF

16

No 93.) In this motion, plaintiff claimed that on September 24, 2021, he mailed the court a

17

motion for an extension of time, which the court did not receive. (Id.) Plaintiff also claimed that

18

he was taken to a facility in Bakersfield, California for back treatment. (Id.)

19

On November 18, 2021, the undersigned vacated the November 4, 2021 findings and

20

recommendations and granted plaintiff sixty days to file a second amended complaint (which

21

appeared to be his intention). (ECF No. 94.)

22

Sixty days passed from November 18, 2021, and plaintiff did not file a second amended

23

complaint. Accordingly, on January 26, 2022, the undersigned recommended that this action be

24

dismissed. (ECF No. 95.)

25

On January 26, 2022, plaintiff file a motion for a sixty-days extension of time to file a

26

second amended complaint. (ECF No. 96.) In this motion, plaintiff alleged that he was living in

27

post-acute care in Lynwood, California. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged that since receiving the November

28

18, 2021 order, he was unable to acquire telephone access during the morning hours to
2

1

communicate with attorneys. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleged that he was unable to purchase his own

2

telephone. (Id.)

3

On February 1, 2022, the undersigned vacated the January 26, 2022 findings and

4

recommendations. (ECF No. 97.) The undersigned granted plaintiff thirty days to file either a

5

second amended complaint or a notice to proceed on the potentially colorable claims in the first

6

amended complaint. (Id.) The undersigned ordered that no further extensions of time to comply

7

with the August 24, 2021 order would be granted. (Id.) The undersigned also ordered that failure

8

to comply with the February 1, 2022 order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this

9

action. (Id.)
On March 10, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-days extension of time to file a

10
11

second amended complaint. (ECF No. 98.) Plaintiff alleges that during February 2022, he had

12

access to the telephone on two occasions. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that due to limited telephone

13

access, he was unable to contact lawyers or purchase a cellular phone. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that

14

his limited access to the telephone is based on COVID-19 restrictions. (Id.) Plaintiff appears to

15

claim that if he is unable to obtain counsel within thirty days, he will file either a second amended

16

complaint or notice to proceed on the potentially colorable claims in the first amended complaint.

17

(Id.)

18

Discussion

19

For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s March 10, 2022 motion for extension of time is

20

denied. Plaintiff had approximately six months to comply with the August 24, 2021 order. While

21

the undersigned recognizes plaintiff’s desire to obtain counsel, plaintiff had adequate opportunity

22

to obtain counsel and to inform the court how he intends to proceed. In the February 1, 2022

23

order, the undersigned specifically advised plaintiff that no further requests for extension of time

24

would be granted. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is denied.

25
26

For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed
for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the August 24, 2021 order.

27

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an

28

action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
3

1

1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a

2

court order the district court must weigh five factors including: ‘(1) the public’s interest in

3

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

4

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

5

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (quoting Thompson

6

v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)).

7

The first two Ferdik factors strongly support dismissal of this action. Plaintiff had

8

approximately six months to comply with the August 24, 2021 order directing him to file either a

9

second amended complaint or a notice that he intends to proceed on the potentially colorable

10

claims in the first amended complaint. By filing the March 10, 2022 motion for extension of

11

time, plaintiff disobeyed the February 1, 2022 order advising that no further requests for

12

extension of time would be granted. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the August 24, 2021 order,

13

based on the circumstances described above, supports a finding that the first two Ferdik factors,

14

i.e., the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage its

15

docket, favor dismissal.

16

Arguably, the third factor – prejudice to defendants – does not counsel in favor of

17

dismissal because defendants have not been served. However, the Ninth Circuit has held that

18

prejudice may be presumed from unreasonable delay. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53

19

(9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the August 24, 2021 order is an unreasonable

20

delay. Accordingly, the undersigned presumes prejudice. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d

21

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (delay found unreasonable where government not served with petition).

22

The fifth Ferdik factor also favors dismissal. As discussed above, the undersigned granted

23

plaintiff multiple extensions of time to comply with the August 24, 2021 order. Based on the

24

record discussed above, the undersigned finds no suitable alternative to dismissal of this action.

25

The fourth Ferdik factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits,

26

weighs against dismissal of this action as a sanction. However, for the reasons set forth supra, the

27

first, second, third, and fifth factors strongly support dismissal. Under the circumstances of this

28

case, those factors outweigh the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
4

1
2
3

merits. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time
(ECF No. 98) is denied; and

4

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

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 days

7

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

8

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.” Plaintiff is advised that

10

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

11

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

12

Dated: March 15, 2022

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Sier1067.dis

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5