(PC) Miron v. Krpan et al, No. 2:2018cv03267 - Document 44 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 11/29/2021 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed and all pending motions be denied as moot. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARON MIRON, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:18-CV-3267-JAM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J. KRPAN, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 6, 2021, the Court stayed this action for 90 days and directed 19 Plaintiff to file a status report upon expiration of the stay. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file 20 a status report may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply 21 with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, Plaintiff has not complied. 22 The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 23 See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 24 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 25 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of 26 prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 27 and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 28 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate 1 1 sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 2 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 3 there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 4 1986). 5 6 Having considered these factors, and in light of Plaintiff’s failure to file a status report as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 7 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that: 8 1. 9 This action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders; and 10 2. All pending motions, ECF Nos. 30, 31, and 32, be denied as moot. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 13 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 15 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 16 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 Dated: November 29, 2021 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
