(PS)Chapa v. Placer County Sheriff's Department et al, No. 2:2019cv01200 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/1/2020 STAYING all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action pending resolution of these findings and recommendations and RECOMMENDING that the action be Dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and that the Clerk of Court be Directed to close this case. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to these findings and recommendation are due within 14 days. (Coll, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDRA MARIE CHAPA, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:19-cv-01200-JAM-KJN PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT et al., AND ORDER STAYING THE CASE Defendants. Plaintiff commenced this action on June 28, 2019. On October 10, 2019, after plaintiff 18 filed her First Amended Complaint, the court ordered plaintiff to provide the Marshal’s office 19 documents needed to effectuate service on the named defendants. (ECF No. 5.) The court 20 directed plaintiff to provide these documents within 30 days. (Id.) Also on October 10, 2019, the 21 court set a status (pre-trial scheduling) conference in this matter to be held on February 20, 2020, 22 at 10:00 a.m., before the undersigned. (ECF No. 6.) Seven days prior to the conference plaintiff 23 was ordered to provide the court with a brief status report. (Id.) 24 At the February 20, 2020 status (pre-trial scheduling) conference, plaintiff failed to appear 25 and also failed to file anything with the court. No defendant appeared either, presumably because 26 they had not been served, as there is no indication on the docket that plaintiff has provided the 27 Marshal’s office with the required documents. On March 3, 2020, due to plaintiff’s failure to 28 follow court orders and failure to prosecute this matter, this court ordered plaintiff to show cause, 1 1 2 in writing, why this case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 9.) Following the court’s order to show cause plaintiff filed two documents with the court, 3 however, these filings do not show cause as to why dismissal is inappropriate. (See ECF Nos. 10, 4 11.) Her first document, entitled “Power of Attorney” states, in part: “To insure my safety I lien 5 my body back to the United States Government with a percent of interest that will be further 6 discussed.” (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff’s second filing, entitled “Non-Disclosure” appears to be an 7 order signed by plaintiff directing this court to send her documents and for individuals to be 8 cordial. (ECF No. 11.) Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to address why she has not followed 9 court orders and why she has failed to prosecute this matter, and therefore has failed to show 10 11 cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed. Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 12 with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of 13 any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 14 Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part: 15 16 17 18 19 Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules. 20 See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 21 same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). A district 22 court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or 24 fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local 25 rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act 26 sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. 27 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action 28 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 2 1 or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 2 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground 3 for dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal 4 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with 5 any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 6 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and 7 may impose sanctions including dismissal or default). 8 9 10 A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. Specifically, the court must consider: 11 12 13 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 14 15 Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002). 16 Here, the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal, because this matter has already 17 been delayed by plaintiff’s failure to take the steps necessary to move this case forward. The 18 third factor also slightly favors dismissal, because, at a minimum, defendants have been deprived 19 of an opportunity to be promptly notified of the lawsuit and prepare a defense. With the passage 20 of time, witnesses’ memories fade and evidence becomes stale. 21 Furthermore, the fifth factor, availability of less drastic alternatives, favors dismissal, 22 because the court has already attempted less drastic remedies. The court, cognizant of plaintiff’s 23 pro se status, clearly cautioned plaintiff regarding the potential consequences of any continued 24 failure to comply with the court’s orders. The court directed plaintiff to address why she had not 25 followed court orders (ECF No. 9), however, even after this order, plaintiff has failed to 26 adequately respond and failed to prosecute her case. 27 28 Finally, as to the fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, that factor is outweighed by the other Ferdik factors. Indeed, it is plaintiff’s own failure to 3 1 2 3 prosecute this case and comply with court orders that precludes a resolution on the merits. Therefore, after carefully evaluating the Ferdik factors, the court concludes that dismissal is appropriate. 4 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. The action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 7 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 10 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 13 shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 14 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 15 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 16 Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 In light of those recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading, 18 discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of the findings and 19 recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations and 20 any non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any 21 motions and other filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. Dated: April 1, 2020 24 25 26 chapa.F&R 27 28 4
]]>
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.
