Valenzuela v. Doe

Filing 7

ORDER. The deadline for the plaintiff to object to this recommendation was 3/10/25, and the plaintiff neither filed anything nor asked to extend the deadline to do so. "[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendat ion unless objections are filed." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge 's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 6 ] is ADOPTED in its entirety, this case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 3/12/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5

Heather D. Valenzuela,

6

Plaintiffs

7

vs.

8

John Doe,

11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
CASE
ECF No. 6

Defendant

9
10

Case No. 2:24-cv-02193-JAD-MDC

On 2/24/25, the magistrate judge entered this report and recommendation [ECF No. 6]:
The Court previously ordered plaintiff Heather D. Valenzuela to either pay the filing fee or file a

12

new in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. ECF No. 5. The Court also ordered the plaintiff to file a

13

notice indicating whether she wishes to pursue § 1983 civil rights complaint or pursue a habeas petition.

14

Id. Plaintiff has not filed anything or paid the filing fee, and the deadline to do so has passed. It appears

15

that plaintiff has abandoned this case. The Court recommends that this case be dismissed.

16

I. LEGAL STANDARD

17

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that

18

power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v.

19

Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action

20

based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. Malone v. U.S. Postal

21

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson

22

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply

23

with local rules).

24

In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1)

25

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;

1

and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460

2

F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.

3

1987)).

4

II. ANALYSIS

5

The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s

6

interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiff has chosen

7

not to comply with this Court’s Order. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in

8

favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in

9

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

10

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors

11

favoring dismissal.

12

The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used to

13

correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. Cal.

14

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before

15

the party has disobeyed a Court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291

16

F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases

17

that “implicitly accepted pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the Court’s Order as

18

satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled with the warning of

19

dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every

20

sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case but must explore possible and meaningful

21

alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.

22

This Court cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees and litigation cannot progress

23

without a plaintiff’s compliance with Court orders. The only alternative is to enter another order setting

24

another deadline. Issuing another order, however, will only delay the inevitable and further squander the

25
2

1

Court’s finite resources. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these

2

circumstances. The fifth factor favors dismissal.

3

After weighing these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal.

4

Plaintiff has apparently abandoned this case. For the reasons discussed in this Order and the Court’s

5

earlier Order (ECF No. 5), plaintiff’s case should be dismissed.

6

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT this case be DISMISSED.

7

Dated: February 24, 2025.

8
9

_________________________
Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14

Order Adopting R&R
The deadline for the plaintiff to object to this recommendation was 3/10/25, and the plaintiff
neither filed anything nor asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a

15

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” United States v. Reyna-

16

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find

17

good cause to adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report

18

and Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is ADOPTED in its entirety, this case is DISMISSED, and the

19

Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

20
21
22
23
24
25

_________________________________
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
Dated: March 12, 2025