(PS) Meeks v. Chronister et al, No. 2:2019cv02514 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/29/20 RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff's claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Clerk of Court be directed to CLOSE this case. ORDERI NG that all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of the findings and recommendations. F&R referred to District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANAI MEEKS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-2514-KJM-KJN PS Plaintiff, v. NATASHA CHRONISTER, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER (ECF No. 16) Defendants. 16 17 On December 13, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint and accompanying motion to proceed 18 in forma pauperis (IFP). (ECF Nos. 1, 2). The court granted the IFP request on January 29, 19 2020. (ECF No. 4.) On February 5, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and was found to 20 potentially state claims against defendants. (ECF No 5.) Thus, the court determined that service 21 was appropriate, ordered the clerk to send plaintiff the necessary paperwork. (Id.) The court then 22 ordered plaintiff to supply the U.S. Marshal, within 30 days, all information necessary to 23 effectuate service, and to file a statement with the court that she had in fact sent this information 24 to the Marshal. (Id.) Plaintiff was warned that a “[f]ailure to comply with this order may result in 25 any appropriate sanctions, including monetary sanctions and/or dismissal of the action pursuant to 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” (Id. at 3.) 27 28 Instead, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint and other miscellaneous motions, alongside a “notice of submitting service documents.” (ECF Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15.) Despite 1 1 the notice, which did not contain any information about where or how the documents were 2 submitted, the U.S. Marshal confirmed that no service documents had been received. On June 3, 3 the court again screened plaintiff’s complaint, ordered service, and again ordered plaintiff to 4 provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshal within 30 days and a notice to the court 10 5 days after. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff was again warned that a failure to provide the Marshal with 6 the necessary information and failure to follow the court’s order could result in sanctions, 7 including dismissal. (Id. at 4.) This deadline has now passed, and the court has not received any 8 notice from plaintiff regarding service. Additionally, the U.S. Marshal has confirmed that no 9 service documents have been received. 10 Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part: 11 Any individual representing himself [] 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. 12 13 14 See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 15 same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). A district 16 court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or 18 fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local 19 rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act 20 sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. 21 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (sua sponte dismissal under Rule 41(b) approved 22 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); 23 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of 25 the court.”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per 26 curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose 27 sanctions including dismissal or default). 28 /// 2 1 A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 2 prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local 3 rules. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. These are: 4 5 6 7 8 9 (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. Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal, because this case has already been delayed by plaintiff’s failure to take the steps necessary to move this case forward. The third 10 factor also favors dismissal, because, at a minimum, defendants have been deprived of an 11 opportunity to be promptly notified of the lawsuit and prepare their defense. With the passage of 12 time, memories’ fade and evidence becomes stale. The fifth factor also favors dismissal because 13 the court has already attempted less drastic alternatives. Specifically, the court has twice 14 provided plaintiff with instructions on how to submit information to the Marshal’s office for 15 service of defendants, and twice warned plaintiff of the consequences for failure to do so. (ECF 16 Nos. 5, 16.) However, plaintiff has failed to take this step, leaving the court with little alternative 17 but to recommend dismissal. Given her request to proceed IFP, it is unlikely that monetary 18 sanctions could be effective. 19 As to the fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition on their merits, that factor is 20 outweighed by the other Ferdik factors. Indeed, it is plaintiff’s own failure to prosecute the case 21 and comply with the rules that precludes a resolution on the merits. Therefore, after carefully 22 evaluating the Ferdik factors, the court concludes that dismissal is appropriate. See Durst v. Nat'l 23 Cas. Co., 452 F.2d 610, 610 (9th Cir. 1971) (affirming dismissal for failure to prosecute where 24 plaintiff failed to serve process, and failed to respond to the court’s order despite multiple 25 warnings); see also, e.g., Brandon v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff Dep't, 2013 WL 2423173, at *2 26 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2013) (recommending dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute 27 where plaintiff failed to provide U.S. Marshal with information necessary for service, and failed 28 to respond to multiple warnings from the court regarding this failure). 3 1 RECOMMENDATIONS 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. 4 Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and 5 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 8 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 11 shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 12 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 13 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 14 Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 ORDER In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading, 17 discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of the findings and 18 recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations and 19 any non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any 20 motions and other filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved. 21 Dated: July 29, 2020 22 23 meek.2514 24 25 26 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.