(PC) Short v. Sanzberro et al, No. 1:2009cv00996 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Case 14 for Failure to Obey a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 04/21/2010. Referred to Judge Wanger; Objections to F&R due by 5/24/2010. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Short v. Sanzberro et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RODNEY L. SHORT, 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, vs. JOHN SANZBERRO, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-00996-OWW-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER (Doc. 19.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 13 14 On February 10, 2010, the court issued an order for plaintiff to complete and return service 15 documents to initiate service of process in this action, within thirty days. (Doc. 19.) More than sixty 16 days have now expired, and plaintiff has not submitted any service documents or otherwise responded 17 to the court's order. 18 In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set forth 19 in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 20 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to 21 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring 22 disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 23 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 24 “‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’” id. 25 (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the action has 26 been pending since June 2009 . Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order may reflect Plaintiff's 27 disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot continue to expend its scarce 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by submitting the documents required to initiate 2 service of process in his case. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 3 Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of 4 itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently increases the risk 5 that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it is Plaintiff's failure to 6 return service documents to the court, in response to the Court's order, that is causing delay. Therefore, 7 the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 8 As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available 9 to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 10 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, 11 making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion 12 of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this 13 case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of 14 dismissal with prejudice. 15 16 17 18 Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643. Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of February 10, 2010. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 20 to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after being 21 served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 22 Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 23 Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 24 waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: 28 April 21, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 2 1 6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
