Ramirez v. Spokane County Jail et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE - The court certifies any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith (cc: Angel Evaristo Ramirez via first class mail). Signed by Judge Stanley A Bastian. (PL, Case Administrator)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 ANGEL EVARISTO RAMIREZ, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 2:16-CV-00404-SAB 13 SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL and 14 SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT 15 COURT, Defendants. 16 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 17 By Order filed January 17, 2017, the Court advised Plaintiff, a pro se post- 18 19 conviction prisoner at the Kootenai County Jail in Idaho, of the deficiencies of his 20 complaint and directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss within sixty (60) days. 21 Although the Court was concerned about the discriminatory tone of Plaintiff’s 22 arguments, he had failed to properly identify Defendants or to state what they did 23 which violated his constitutionally protected rights. ECF No. 7. The Court cautioned that failure to amend as directed would result in 24 25 dismissal of the complaint. Despite this admonition, Plaintiff has not amended the 26 complaint and he has filed nothing further in this action. 27 // 28 // ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE -- 1 DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 1 “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may 2 3 dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. 4 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court should consider five 5 factors when deciding whether to dismiss a case for failure to obey a court order: 6 (1) The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 7 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 8 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 9 drastic alternatives. Id. at 1260-61 (citations omitted). The first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The need to manage the 10 11 docket and the public’s interests are served by a quick resolution of civil rights 12 litigation. The third factor also favors dismissal. Defendants will not be prejudiced 13 if the claims are dismissed because the defendants have not yet been served. Only 14 the fourth factor arguably weighs against dismissal. However, Plaintiff has simply 15 not yet presented a sufficient case. As for the fifth factor, the only less drastic 16 alternative would be to allow Plaintiff yet more time to amend his complaint. 17 Plaintiff, however, has already had two months in which to file an amended 18 complaint; and failed to do so. Allowing a further extension would frustrate the 19 purpose of the first two factors; therefore, the fifth factor favors dismissal. On balance, the four factors that favor dismissal outweigh the one that does 20 21 not. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263 (citing Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 22 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (four factors heavily supporting dismissal outweigh one 23 against dismissal), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988)). 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE -- 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 6, is DISMISSED WITHOUT 3 PREJUDICE. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER this 5 Order, ENTER judgment of dismissal, FORWARD copies to Plaintiff at his last 6 known address, and CLOSE the file. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and 8 would lack any arguable basis in law or fact. 9 DATED this 3rd day of May, 2017. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE -- 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?