Iegorova v. Hobble

Filing 5

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/4/2018 RECOMMENDEDING that the action be DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this case. ORDERING that all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and recommendations. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:17-cv-2221-GEB-KJN PS

ORDER AND

BRUCE HOBBLE,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

15
Defendant.

16
17

On October 24, 2017, plaintiff Liudmyla Iegorova, proceeding without counsel, filed the

18
19

instant action along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) However,

20

plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete, did not provide all of the

21

requested information, and in many instances simply referred back to some other action that was

22

filed in this court. Therefore, on October 27, 2017, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed

23

in forma pauperis without prejudice. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was ordered, no later than November

24

10, 2017, to either file a properly-completed amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay

25

the applicable filing fee. (Id.) Plaintiff was further cautioned that failure to timely comply with

26

the order may result in dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

27

(Id.)

28

////
1

1

Plaintiff ultimately failed to either file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis

2

or pay the applicable filing fee. At that time, the court considered whether the action should be

3

dismissed. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status and the court’s desire to resolve the

4

action on the merits, the court first attempted lesser monetary sanctions in the amount of $100.00,

5

to be paid by December 15, 2017. Because plaintiff at least initially sought leave to proceed in

6

forma pauperis, the amount imposed was necessarily minimal. Plaintiff was again expressly

7

cautioned that failure to timely comply with the court’s order would result in dismissal of the

8

action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (See ECF No. 4.)

9

Although the applicable deadline has now long passed, plaintiff failed to pay the sanctions

10

and has yet to file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis; nor has plaintiff even

11

requested an extension of time to do so. Consequently, at this juncture, the court has little choice

12

but to recommend dismissal.

13

Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply

14

with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of

15

any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”

16

Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:

17
18
19
20

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.

21

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the

22

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). A district

23

court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or

25

fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local

26

rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act

27

sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S.

28

Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action
2

1

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute

2

or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

3

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground

4

for dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal

5

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with

6

any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.

7

1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and

8

may impose sanctions including dismissal or default).

9

A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to

10

prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local

11

rules. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. Specifically, the court must consider:

12
13
14
15
16

(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.
Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal, because this case has already been

17

delayed by plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders. The third factor also slightly favors

18

dismissal, because, at a minimum, defendant has been deprived of an opportunity to be timely

19

notified of the action and respond to plaintiff’s allegations. With the passage of time, witnesses’

20

memories fade and evidence becomes stale.

21

Furthermore, the fifth factor, availability of less drastic alternatives, favors dismissal,

22

because the court has already attempted less drastic alternatives. More specifically, the court,

23

cognizant of plaintiff’s pro se status, first provided plaintiff with additional time to file a

24

properly-completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and thereafter imposed lesser monetary

25

sanctions, which were ultimately ineffective. The court also clearly cautioned plaintiff regarding

26

the potential consequences of any continued failure to comply with the court’s orders.

27

Additionally, given plaintiff’s complete failure to respond to court orders, the court is not

28

persuaded that plaintiff would pay increased monetary sanctions if ordered to do so.
3

1

Finally, as to the fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

2

merits, that factor is outweighed by the other Ferdik factors. Indeed, it is plaintiff’s own failure to

3

prosecute the case and comply with court orders that precludes a resolution on the merits.

4
5

Therefore, after carefully evaluating the Ferdik factors, the court concludes that dismissal
is appropriate.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

7

1.

The action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

8

2.

The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

9

In light of those recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,

10

discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of the findings and

11

recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations and

12

any non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any

13

motions and other filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved.

14

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

15

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

16

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

17

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

18

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

19

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the

20

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

21

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

22

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.
Dated: January 4, 2018

25
26
27
28
4