Adams v. Adams

Opinion

3 Brandon G. Adams, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00503-JAD-NJK

4 Plaintiff

5 v. Order Dismissing Complaint and Closing Case 6 Yvette K. Adams, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 In March 2021, pro se plaintiff Brandon Adams filed an in forma pauperis application 9 and complaint challenging his state-court-ordered obligation to pay child support.1 The 10 magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and dismissed it with leave 11 to amend, finding that Adams’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman and Younger doctrines 12 and that he failed to state a federal claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 The magistrate 13 judge gave Adams until June 7, 2021, to file an amended complaint correcting those deficiencies 14 if he was able to do so.3 She also advised Adams that “[f]ailure to comply with [her] order will 15 result in the recommended dismissal of this case.”4 16 Adams did not file an amended complaint. Instead, he filed an objection to the 17 magistrate judge’s order, as well as a deluge of “notices” containing judicial opinions, statutory 18 text, delinquency notices reflecting his failure to pay child support, and affidavits alleging new 19 facts and requesting miscellaneous relief.5 I overruled Adams’s objection to the magistrate 20

21 1 ECF No. 1-1 (complaint); ECF No. 7 (complete in forma pauperis application). 2 ECF No. 8. 22 3 Id. at 5. 23 4 Id. 5 See generally ECF Nos. 9–15; ECF Nos.17–74. 1 judge’s order and ordered him to file an amended complaint by March 28, 2022.6 I also warned 2 Adams that if he failed to file an amended complaint, his case would be dismissed for failure to 3 comply with court orders.7 4 Adams again failed to file an amended complaint consistent with the magistrate judge’s 5 screening order. Instead, he filed multiple “affidavits” demanding that both judges in this case

6 recuse themselves, that all orders in this case and those in his state-court child-support 7 proceedings be vacated, and that he be sent “filed copies of every document sent in this case.”8 8 After careful review, none of these rogue documents can be construed as an amended complaint 9 that complies with the court’s previous orders. 10 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 11 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.9 12 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court 13 order, or failure to comply with local rules.10 In determining whether to dismiss an action on one 14 of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

15 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 16

6 ECF No. 79. 17 7 Id. at 2, 5. 18 8 See ECF Nos. 80–88. 19 9 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 10 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 20 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440– 21 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 22 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules); 23 see also Local Rule 41-1 (authorizing dismissal of civil actions pending for “more than 270 days without any proceeding of record having been taken”). (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 2|| drastic alternatives.'! 3 The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation weighs in favor of dismissal, as does the court’s interest in managing its docket—particularly in this case, which Adams has cluttered with dozens of impermissible pleadings and continues to do so. The third 6}| factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption 7\| of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the 8] court." The court has considered alternatives to dismissal but finds them futile and inadequate 9||here. Adams has been repeatedly instructed on his need for an amended complaint, and his 10]| continued failure to comply with this court’s instructions strongly suggests that he can’t or won’t; further orders won’t change that.!°_ The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without 14|| prejudice for failure to comply with court orders. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter 15||judgment accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. Adams’s IFP status should not continue on 16]| appeal. 17

U.S. Dis hdge Je ite} A. Dorsey 19 May 2, 2022 20 21 22 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. !? See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). '3 ECF No. 16; ECF No. 79.