(PC)Briones v. Pleasant Valley State Prison et al, No. 1:2014cv00750 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Case for Failure to Obey Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/18/2014, referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due by 1/23/2015. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNNY BRIONES, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, vs. 1:14-cv-00750-LJO-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER (Doc. 19.) PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, et OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY al., (30) DAYS Defendants. 17 18 19 On October 31, 2014, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a Second 20 Amended Complaint bearing his signature, within thirty days. (Doc. 19.) The thirty day period 21 has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint or otherwise 22 responded to the Court's order. 23 In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives 24 set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public=s interest in 25 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 26 prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 27 28 1 1 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 2 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 3 A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@ 4 id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the 5 action has been pending since May 19, 2014. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order 6 may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot 7 continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by 8 litigating his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 9 Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 10 and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently 11 increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it 12 is Plaintiff's failure to file the Second Amended Complaint that is causing delay. Therefore, the 13 third factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 14 As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 15 available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 16 Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in 17 forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage 18 of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, 19 inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is 20 stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice. 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 based 24 on plaintiff's failure to obey the court=s order of October 31, 2014. 25 recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, 26 pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being 27 served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 28 court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 2 These findings and 1 Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, __ F.3d __, __, No. 3 11-17911, 2014 WL 6435497, at *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 4 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 18, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.