Gonzalez Morales v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. The Court exercises its inherent power to dismiss this action for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute and for failure to follow a court order. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its entirety. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 7/19/2016.(acc).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

ISRAEL GONZALEZ MORALES,
et al.,

14
15
16
17

Case No. 15-cv-2489-BAS(JMA)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs,
v.
JEH JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20

Plaintiffs commenced this action on November 3, 2015. There was no activity

21

during the subsequent six months, including no indication that Plaintiffs had served

22

the complaint on Defendants. On June 6, 2016, the Court held a noticed hearing for

23

dismissal for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)

24

and Civil Local Rule 41.1. Counsel appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs at the dismissal

25

hearing, and the Court gave Plaintiffs leave to complete service within 30 days. To

26

date, there remains no indication that Plaintiffs have served the complaint.

27

“District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and, ‘[i]n the

28

exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . .
–1–

15cv2489

1

dismissal of a case.’” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)

2

(quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); accord

3

Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (holding courts are vested with an

4

inherent power “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and

5

expeditious disposition of cases”). This inherent power exists independently of a

6

district court’s authority to dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7

41(b). Link, 370 U.S. at 630-32. “Despite this authority, dismissal is a harsh penalty

8

and, therefore, it should only be imposed in extreme circumstances.” Ferdik, 963

9

F.2d at 1260.

10

The circumstances in which a court may exercise its inherent power to dismiss

11

an action include where a plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case, failed to comply

12

with a court order, or engaged in judge shopping. Link, 370 U.S. at 630; Yourish v.

13

Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th Cir. 1999); Hernandez v. City of El Monte,

14

138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). In determining whether to exercise this power,

15

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

16

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

17

risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases

18

on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d

19

at 1260-61 (quoting Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424; Thompson, 782 F.2d 829 at 831)

20

(internal quotation marks omitted). “The first two of these factors favor the

21

imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default

22

or dismissal sanction.” Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

23

“Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.” Id. Although

24

it is preferred, the district court is not required to “make explicit findings in order to

25

show that it has considered these factors.” Ferdik, 963 F.3d at 1261.

26

Under the circumstances of this case, and as recognized by the Ninth Circuit,

27

the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to

28

manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal while the public policy favoring
–2–

15cv2489

1

disposition of cases on their merits weighs against dismissal. See Wanderer, 910 F.2d

2

at 656. Risk of prejudice to Defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal since a

3

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in

4

prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

5

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will

6

result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

7

963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The

8

Court held a hearing on June 6, 2016 to determine whether dismissal was appropriate

9

given Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this action and serve the complaint, but the Court

10

ultimately gave Plaintiffs 30 days to complete service. Consequently, Plaintiffs had

11

adequate warning that failure to serve the complaint may result in dismissal of this

12

action, and the factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

13

In light of the foregoing, the Court exercises its inherent power to dismiss this

14

action for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute and for failure to follow a court order.

15

Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its

16

entirety.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

DATED: July 19, 2016

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–

15cv2489