Stokes v. Broadmoor Police Department et al
Filing
13
ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/27/2017. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CLARENCE STOKES,
Plaintiff,
8
BROADMOOR POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
9
10
Case No.16-cv-04106-JSC
Defendants.
12
Plaintiff Clarence Stokes brings this civil rights action against the Broadmoor Police
13
14
Department and Police Commission and two individual police officers arising out of Plaintiff’s
15
arrest at a family gathering. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff initiated this action on July 21, 2016. (Id.) On
16
October 27, 2016, at a Case Management Conference, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve
17
Defendants within 30 days, ordered the parties to file a joint case management statement by
18
January 19, 2017, and set a further CMC for January 26, 2017. (Dkt. No. 9.) The Court held the
19
January 26 further CMC, and Plaintiff did not appear. (See Dkt. No. 12.) In addition, Plaintiff
20
neither filed a case management statement in advance of the scheduled CMC nor filed proof of
21
service on the docket. Thus, as of the date of this Order—over six months since he filed the
22
complaint—Plaintiff has still not served Defendants, and he has failed to comply with the Court’s
23
orders.
24
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court may dismiss an action for
25
failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v.
26
U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a court may sua sponte
27
dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b)); see also Castellanos v. Countrywide Bank NA, No. 15-
28
cv-00896-BLF, 2015 WL 5243327, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015) (noting that a plaintiff’s failure
1
to serve defendants is considered a failure to prosecute). A Rule 41(b) dismissal “must be
2
supported by a showing of unreasonable delay.” Olmstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th
3
Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). “In determining whether to dismiss a claim for . . . failure to comply
4
with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in
5
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
6
prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the
7
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639,
8
642 (9th Cir. 2002). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or
9
where at least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s unjustified failure to serve Defendants constitutes unreasonable delay. See
12
Castellanos, 2015 WL 5243327, at *2. Moreover, four of the five Pagtalunan factors weigh in
13
favor of dismissal. In connection with the first and second factor, by failing to serve Defendants,
14
Plaintiff has completely stalled this action and interfered with the Court’s need to manage its
15
docket. As to the third factor, the Ninth Circuit has “related the risk of prejudice to the plaintiff’s
16
reason for defaulting.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. Here, Plaintiff has offered no explanation
17
for his failure to serve Defendants or appear as ordered. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of
18
dismissal. The fourth factor is the availability of less drastic sanctions. The Court has already
19
given Plaintiff a generous extension of time to serve Defendants, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and
20
only now after Plaintiff has still failed to serve Defendants and to appear at the CMC or otherwise
21
explain his delay is the Court turning to dismissal. The last factor, which favors disposition on the
22
merits, by definition weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors
23
disposition of cases on the merits. Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal.”). Four of the five
24
relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissing this action in its entirety, so dismissal is appropriate.
25
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 43 (affirming dismissal where three factors favored dismissal, while two
26
factors weighed against dismissal).
27
28
Plaintiff has consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to magistrate judge jurisdiction in
this matter. (Dkt. No. 8.) Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ complaint without
2
1
2
3
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2017
4
5
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?