Solesbee v. County of Inyo et al, No. 1:2013cv01548 - Document 79 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing the Action for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Orders, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/28/2016. Referred to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Hall, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TANYA SOLESBEE, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 COUNTY OF INYO, Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-01548 - AWI - JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS 16 17 Plaintiff Tanya Solesbee contends she suffered from sexual harassment and a hostile work 18 environment while participating in the Work Release Assistance Program. (Doc. 1) However, Plaintiff 19 has failed to comply with the Court’s orders and failed to prosecute this action. Accordingly, the Court 20 recommends the action be DISMISSED with prejudice.1 21 I. Relevant Background 22 On May 20, 2016, the Court granted the motion filed by Waukeen McCoy to withdraw as 23 counsel for Plaintiff. (Doc. 76) The Court ordered Plaintiff to “file a notification with the Court 24 indicating whether she intends to represent herself going forward or whether she will retain a new 25 attorney” no later than June 3, 2016. (Id. at 3) The Court instructed Plaintiff that if she intended to hire 26 27 28 1 All discovery deadlines are STAYED pending the District Judge’s evaluation of these findings and recommendations. In the event the District Judge does not adopt these findings and recommendations, the Court will set a further scheduling conference to allow completion of discovery. 1 1 an attorney, she must notify the Court regarding when that would occur. (Id.) 2 Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order. As a result, the Court issued an order to show 3 cause why the action should not be dismissed for the failure to respond to the Court’s order, or in the 4 alternative, “to file a notification indicating whether she intends to represent herself.” (Doc. 77 at 2) 5 To date, Plaintiff has not responded to either order of the Court, or taken any further action to prosecute 6 the matter. 7 II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 8 9 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 10 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent 11 power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including 12 dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 13 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action 14 or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 15 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment 16 of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 17 comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 18 failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 19 III. 20 Discussion and Analysis To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court 21 order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 22 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 23 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability 24 of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 25 Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831. 26 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s 27 interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 28 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 2 1 dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 2 managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Judges in the Eastern District 3 of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this Court cannot, and will not hold, this 4 action in abeyance given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute. 5 The risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury 6 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 7 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 8 Significantly, the Ninth Circuit determined a court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the 9 court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the requirement that less drastic sanctions be considered. 10 Malone, 833 F.2d at 131; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “a 11 plaintiff can hardly be surprised” by a sanction of dismissal “in response to willful violation of a 12 [court] order.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 133. Here, Plaintiff was warned that “her failure to comply with 13 this or any order of the Court may result in the action being dismissed.” (Doc. 76 at 3, emphasis 14 in original). Again, in the order to show cause Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the 15 Court’s orders would result in dismissal of action. (Doc. 77 at 1-2) Thus, Plaintiffs received adequate 16 warning that dismissal would result from her noncompliance with the Court’s orders, which satisfies 17 the Court’s obligation to consider lesser sanctions. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. Given these facts, 18 the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of 19 dismissal. 20 IV. Findings and Recommendations 21 Plaintiff failed to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the Court’s orders dated May 20, 2016 22 (Doc. 76) and June 8, 2016 (Doc. 77). Consequently, Plaintiff also failed to continue the prosecution of 23 this action. Based upon the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS: 24 1. This action be DISMISSED with prejudice; and 25 2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close the action. 26 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 28 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days 3 1 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections 2 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 3 Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 4 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); 5 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014). 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 28, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
