Pierce v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs et al

Filing 56

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
QUENTIN PIERCE,

10

Plaintiff,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.15-cv-02811-JSC
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.

12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

13

Defendant.

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff Quentin Pierce filed this Federal Tort Claims Act action in June 2015. Because
Plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery requests, including his noticed deposition, and failed to

18

comply with this Court’s Orders including an Order to Show Cause as to why this action should

19

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice.1

20

BACKGROUND

21
22
23
24
25

Over the last several months, Defendant has attempted to obtain discovery from Plaintiff
regarding his claims. After Plaintiff failed to attend the Case Management Conference on February 16,
2017, the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to respond to the outstanding written discovery
requests by February 28, 2017 and appear for his deposition in the Court’s Jury Room on March 9,
2017. (Dkt. No. 46.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Order could result in

26
27
1

28

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 8 & 15.)

1

dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). On March 8, 2017, Defendant

2

filed a statement indicating that it had not received any written discovery responses from Plaintiff. On

3

March 9, 2017, Plaintiff failed to appear for his deposition in the Court’s Jury Room. (Dkt. No. 51.)

4

The Court thus issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this action should not be dismissed pursuant

5

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Dkt. No. 52.) Plaintiff was ordered to provide Defendant

6

with the written discovery by March 23, 2017 and ordered to appear and show cause in person on

7

April 6, 2017 as to why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with the

8

Court’s orders. Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of the action

9

without further notice.
Instead of responding the Court’s OSC, Plaintiff left three voicemails for Defendant’s counsel

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

on March 16, 2017. Plaintiff states that he cannot comply with the discovery requests and, among

12

other things, in any angry tone uses profanities and threatens that there will be retaliation. Defendant

13

shall place a CD of the voicemails in the Court’s record and a transcript is attached to Docket No. 53-

14

1.

15

On April 6, 2017, Plaintiff failed to appear and has not otherwise communicated with the

16

Court; further, defense counsel advised the Court that she had not received the outstanding written

17

discovery nor heard from Plaintiff.

18
19

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court may dismiss an action for

20

failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v.

21

U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a court may sua sponte

22

dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b)). “A Rule 41(b) dismissal must be supported by a

23

showing of unreasonable delay.” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 108s1, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010)

24

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is

25

appropriate, the court must weigh the following factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

26

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

27

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the

28

availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423
2

1

(9th Cir. 1986)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or

2

where at least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d

3

393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

4

Here, four of the five Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal. “The first two

5

factors—the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage

6

its docket—relate to the “efficient administration of judicial business for the benefit of all litigants

7

with cases pending.” Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1279

8

(9th Cir. 1980). By failing to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests despite being given

9

multiple opportunities to do so, failing to respond to the Court’s Orders to Show Cause to provide
such discovery, failing to appear for his Court-ordered deposition, and failing to appear for the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Order to Show Cause hearing, Plaintiff has delayed adjudication of this action. Non-compliance

12

with procedural rules and the Court’s orders wastes “valuable time that [the Court] could have

13

devoted to other ... criminal and civil cases on its docket.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

14

1261 (9th Cir. 1992).

15

As for the third factor, while “the pendency of the lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial

16

itself to warrant dismissal,” the delay caused by Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action despite

17

the Court’s orders weighs in favor of dismissal. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983,

18

991 (9th Cir. 1999).

19

The fourth factor is the availability of less drastic sanctions. The Court twice extended the

20

deadline for Plaintiff to provide his written discovery responses, and after he failed to appear for

21

his deposition, the Court gave him the opportunity to appear and show cause as to why the action

22

should not be dismissed. Plaintiff did not appear despite being warned that failure to do so would

23

result in dismissal of the action without further notice. (Dkt. Nos. 46 & 52.) Thus, the Court has

24

fulfilled its “obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958

25

F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Ferdick, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“A district court’s warning to a

26

party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of

27

[less drastic sanctions] requirement.”). As there appears to be no less drastic sanction than

28

dismissal now practicably available, the fourth factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
3

1

The last factor, which favors disposition on the merits, by definition weighs against

2

dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Public policy favors

3

disposition of cases on the merits. Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal.”).

4

In sum, four of the five relevant factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissing this action in

5

its entirety. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (affirming dismissal where three factors favored

6

dismissal, while two factors weighed against dismissal).
CONCLUSION

7
8
9
10

For the reasons stated above, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) due to Plaintiff's failure to obey court orders and failure to
prosecute this case.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2017

14
15
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4