McPherson v. Medianews Group Inc.
Filing
13
ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED TO DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute. Objections due by 6/17/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 6/3/2014. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2014)
1
*E-Filed: June 3, 2014*
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
For the Northern District of California
NOT FOR CITATION
8
United States District Court
7
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
JANET MCPHERSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
No. C14-00191 HRL
ORDER THAT CASE BE
REASSIGNED TO DISTRICT JUDGE
v.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
14
MEDIANEWS GROUP d/b/a THE
MONTEREY COUNTY HERALD,
[Re: Docket No. 11]
15
16
Defendant.
____________________________________/
17
Plaintiff Janet McPherson, acting pro se, filed a complaint against Medianews Group, Inc. in
18
January 2014, and the initial case management conference was set for May 20, 2014. See Dkt. Nos.
19
1, 5. Also in January, the Court granted McPherson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
20
her motion for permission for electronic case filing. See Dkt. Nos. 6, 7. Shortly thereafter, a clerk’s
21
notice was issued requesting defendant’s address in order to issue the summons. See Dkt. No. 8.
22
Another clerk’s notice was issued reminding McPherson to file a consent or declination to proceed
23
before a magistrate judge. See Dkt. No. 9. After McPherson failed to provide the clerk’s office with
24
defendant’s address, file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge, and appear at
25
the case management conference or even submit a statement, the undersigned ordered her to appear
26
in person on June 3, 2014, to show cause, if any, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to
27
prosecute. Again, McPherson did not appear.
28
1
A court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff's action sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v.
2
Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). When considering dismissal for lack of prosecution, a
3
district court must weigh the court’s need to manage its docket, the public interest in expeditious
4
resolution of litigation, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants against the policy favoring
5
disposition of cases on their merits, and the availability of less drastic sanctions. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739
6
F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984).
7
Here, the Court has made numerous efforts to contact McPherson and further the litigation,
8
but she has consistently failed to respond. Most recently, she violated a court order to appear
9
despite a warning that such a failure would result in dismissal. McPherson’s actions exhibit a
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
disinterest in pursuing this case, and judicial resources cannot continue to be wasted by permitting it
11
to linger. Moreover, it is unfair to the defendants to leave the case pending and unresolved
12
indefinitely. McPherson has left the Court with no appropriate alternative but to recommend that
13
the case be dismissed.
14
Because no party has consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this Court ORDERS the
15
Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a district court judge. The undersigned further
16
RECOMMENDS that the newly-assigned district court judge dismiss this action without prejudice
17
for the reasons set forth above.
18
19
20
21
22
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), any party may serve and file objections to
this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2014
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
C14-00191 HRL Notice will be mailed to:
2
Janet McPherson
P.O. Box 981
Seaside, CA 93955
3
4
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.
5
6
7
8
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
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?