(PC)Park v. Six Unknown Names Agents Or Mr. President Of The United States Barack Obama, No. 1:2013cv01503 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss 1 Case for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with Court Order; Objections, if any, Due in Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/31/2013. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 12/5/2013. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEMS PARK, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, et al., Defendants. 16 1:13-cv-01503-LJO-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER (Doc. 2.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 17 On September 19, 2013, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a signed 18 complaint, and either submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee 19 for this action, within thirty days. (Doc. 2.) The thirty day time period has expired, and 20 Plaintiff has not filed a signed complaint, paid the filing fee, submitted an application, or 21 otherwise responded to the Court's order.1 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 26 27 28 1 The United States Postal Service returned the order on October 21, 2013 as undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicates that Plaintiff is not at the facility located at Plaintiff’s address of record. However, Plaintiff has not notified the court of any change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party=s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f). 1 1 prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 2 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 3 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 4 A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@ 5 id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the 6 action has been pending since September 2013. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's 7 order may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court 8 cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not submit a 9 complaint bearing his signature. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of 10 dismissal. 11 Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 12 and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently 13 increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it 14 is Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order that is causing delay. Therefore, the third 15 factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 16 As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 17 available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 18 Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff failed to pay the 19 filing fee for this action, making it unlikely that monetary sanctions would be effective, and 20 given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not 21 available. 22 prejudice, the Court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with 23 prejudice. 24 25 26 27 However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without 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 September 19, 2013. 28 2 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty 3 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 4 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate 5 Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 6 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 7 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 12 13 14 October 31, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 6i0kij8d 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.
