(PC) Williams v. Rodriguez et al, No. 1:2009cv01882 - Document 79 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED Without Prejudice Based on Plaintiff's Failure to Obey the Court's Order of October 11, 2013 re 36 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/2/2013. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LONNIE CLARK WILLIAMS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. P. RODRIGUEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 1:09-cv-01882-LJO-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER (Doc. 78.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 17 On October 11, 2013, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file oppositions or 18 statements of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion to revoke in forma pauperis status, filed on 19 May 23, 2013, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on May 24, 2013, within thirty days. 20 (Doc. 78.) The thirty day time period has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or 21 statement of non-opposition, or otherwise responded to the court's order. 22 In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives 23 set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public=s interest in 24 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 25 prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 26 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 27 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 28 /// 1 1 A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@ 2 id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the 3 action has been pending since October 2009. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order 4 may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the court cannot 5 continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by 6 defending against Defendants’ motions. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor 7 of dismissal. 8 Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 9 and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently 10 increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it 11 is Plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order that is causing delay. Therefore, the third 12 factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 13 As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 14 available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 15 court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in 16 forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage 17 of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, 18 inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the court is 19 stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice. 20 21 22 23 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 October 11, 2013. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty 26 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 27 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate 28 Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 2 1 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 2 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 7 8 9 December 2, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 6i0kij8d 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.
