Case 5:20-cv-00172-CJC-JC Document 39 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE D. CITIZEN, ) Case No. 5:20-cv-00172-CJC-JC 12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 ) ) 15 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, ) et al., ) 16 ) ) 17 Defendants. ) ____________________________ ) 18 I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 19 On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Andre D. Citizen filed a Complaint pursuant 20 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and on July 6, 2020, filed a First Amended Complaint which, 21 among other things, sought to enjoin criminal proceedings initiated against 22 Plaintiff in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FVI18000824 (“State 23 Criminal Case.”). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 15). 24 On October 15, 2020, this Court issued on Order staying this action pursuant 25 to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny “until the State Criminal 26 Case has been finally resolved.” (Dkt No. 20; “Stay Order”). The Stay Order also 27 required Plaintiff, among other things, to file status reports every sixty days, with 28 Case 5:20-cv-00172-CJC-JC Document 39 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:190
1 the first status report due on December 14, 2020. (Stay Order at 10). Additionally, 2 the Stay Order cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely file a status report “may 3 result in the dismissal of this action based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 4 the Court’s Order and/or for lack of prosecution.” (Stay Order at 10). 5 Plaintiff failed timely to file a status report and on June 28, 2021, the Court 6 issued an Order to Show Cause (“First OSC”) requiring Plaintiff to show cause 7 why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or failure to 8 comply with the Stay Order. (Dkt. No. 26). Plaintiff subsequently filed a Status 9 Report on July 22, 2021. (Dkt. No. 28). 10 On August 5, 2021, the Court discharged the First OSC and sua sponte 11 modified the Stay Order to require “status reports every one hundred twenty (120) 12 days beginning one hundred twenty 120 days from the date of this Order [i.e., by 13 December 3, 2021].” (Dkt. No. 30; “Modified Stay Order”). Despite this modified 14 time frame, Plaintiff again failed timely to file a status report and to date, has not 15 done so. 16 In light of the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge, on February 3, 2022, issued 17 another Order to Show Cause (“Second OSC”) which this Court adopts, and with 18 which this Court agrees. (Docket No. 38). The Second OSC reminded Plaintiff 19 that the latest status report called for by the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order had 20 not been filed and ordered Plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days (i.e., by February 17, 21 2022), to show good cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for 22 failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with the Stay Order/Modified Stay 23 Order. The Second OSC further ordered that the overdue status report must 24 accompany Plaintiff’s response thereto and cautioned Plaintiff that his failure 25 timely to comply with the Second OSC and/or to show good cause may result in 26 the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and/or for failure to comply 27 with the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order and/or the Second OSC. 28 /// 2 Case 5:20-cv-00172-CJC-JC Document 39 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:191
1 Although the deadline to respond to the Second OSC expired more than two 2 weeks ago, to date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Second OSC or filed the 3 required status report that was due in December 2021. Accordingly, as discussed 4 below, this action is dismissed due to Plaintiff’s unreasonable failure to prosecute 5 and Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order and the 6 Second OSC. 7 II. PERTINENT LAW 8 It is well-established that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action 9 where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order and/or unreasonably failed 10 to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 (1962); 11 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.) (as amended), cert. denied, 506 12 U.S. 915 (1992); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) 13 (district court may sua sponte dismiss action “only for an unreasonable failure to 14 prosecute”) (citations omitted). 15 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or 16 failure to comply with court orders, a district court must consider several factors, 17 namely (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 18 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendant/ 19 respondent; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 20 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 21 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (failure to 22 comply with court orders). 23 Dismissal is appropriate under the foregoing analysis “where at least four 24 factors support dismissal . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support 25 dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) 26 (citations omitted). 27 28 3 Case 5:20-cv-00172-CJC-JC Document 39 Filed 03/09/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:192
1 III. DISCUSSION AND ORDERS 2 First, as noted above, the Court has reviewed the Second OSC, agrees with 3 the Second OSC, and finds that the Second OSC was properly issued for the 4 reasons discussed therein. 5 Second, as the above-referenced procedural history reflects, Plaintiff has 6 repeatedly been notified of his obligation to comply with the Stay Order/Modified 7 Stay Order and to file regular status reports and has entirely failed to file the 8 requisite status report that was due in December 2021. Most recently, the Second 9 OSC again afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to explain his failure to file a requisite 10 status report and to show cause why this action should not be dismissed based 11 upon his failure to comply with the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order and to 12 prosecute this action. It further cautioned Plaintiff that his failure timely to 13 respond to the Second OSC may result in the dismissal of this action based upon 14 his failure to comply with the Court’s Orders and/or to prosecute this action. 15 Plaintiff has not responded. 16 Finally, upon consideration of the five factors noted above, the Court finds 17 that Plaintiff’s unreasonable failure to prosecute his case and failure to comply 18 with the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order and the Second OSC warrant dismissal as 19 four factors support dismissal, and at least three factors strongly support dismissal. 20 The first two factors – the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 21 and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The 22 Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely awaiting Plaintiff’s response 23 to the Court’s directives. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also 24 weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 25 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 26 Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case 5:20-cv-00172-CJC-JC Document 39 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE D. CITIZEN, ) Case No. 5:20-cv-00172-CJC-JC 12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 ) ) 15 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, ) et al., ) 16 ) ) 17 Defendants. ) ____________________________ ) 18 I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 19 On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Andre D. Citizen filed a Complaint pursuant 20 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and on July 6, 2020, filed a First Amended Complaint which, 21 among other things, sought to enjoin criminal proceedings initiated against 22 Plaintiff in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FVI18000824 (“State 23 Criminal Case.”). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 15). 24 On October 15, 2020, this Court issued on Order staying this action pursuant 25 to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny “until the State Criminal 26 Case has been finally resolved.” (Dkt No. 20; “Stay Order”). The Stay Order also 27 required Plaintiff, among other things, to file status reports every sixty days, with 28 Case 5:20-cv-00172-CJC-JC Document 39 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:190
1 the first status report due on December 14, 2020. (Stay Order at 10). Additionally, 2 the Stay Order cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely file a status report “may 3 result in the dismissal of this action based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 4 the Court’s Order and/or for lack of prosecution.” (Stay Order at 10). 5 Plaintiff failed timely to file a status report and on June 28, 2021, the Court 6 issued an Order to Show Cause (“First OSC”) requiring Plaintiff to show cause 7 why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or failure to 8 comply with the Stay Order. (Dkt. No. 26). Plaintiff subsequently filed a Status 9 Report on July 22, 2021. (Dkt. No. 28). 10 On August 5, 2021, the Court discharged the First OSC and sua sponte 11 modified the Stay Order to require “status reports every one hundred twenty (120) 12 days beginning one hundred twenty 120 days from the date of this Order [i.e., by 13 December 3, 2021].” (Dkt. No. 30; “Modified Stay Order”). Despite this modified 14 time frame, Plaintiff again failed timely to file a status report and to date, has not 15 done so. 16 In light of the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge, on February 3, 2022, issued 17 another Order to Show Cause (“Second OSC”) which this Court adopts, and with 18 which this Court agrees. (Docket No. 38). The Second OSC reminded Plaintiff 19 that the latest status report called for by the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order had 20 not been filed and ordered Plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days (i.e., by February 17, 21 2022), to show good cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for 22 failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with the Stay Order/Modified Stay 23 Order. The Second OSC further ordered that the overdue status report must 24 accompany Plaintiff’s response thereto and cautioned Plaintiff that his failure 25 timely to comply with the Second OSC and/or to show good cause may result in 26 the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and/or for failure to comply 27 with the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order and/or the Second OSC. 28 /// 2 Case 5:20-cv-00172-CJC-JC Document 39 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:191
1 Although the deadline to respond to the Second OSC expired more than two 2 weeks ago, to date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Second OSC or filed the 3 required status report that was due in December 2021. Accordingly, as discussed 4 below, this action is dismissed due to Plaintiff’s unreasonable failure to prosecute 5 and Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order and the 6 Second OSC. 7 II. PERTINENT LAW 8 It is well-established that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action 9 where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order and/or unreasonably failed 10 to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 (1962); 11 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.) (as amended), cert. denied, 506 12 U.S. 915 (1992); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) 13 (district court may sua sponte dismiss action “only for an unreasonable failure to 14 prosecute”) (citations omitted). 15 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or 16 failure to comply with court orders, a district court must consider several factors, 17 namely (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 18 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendant/ 19 respondent; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 20 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 21 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (failure to 22 comply with court orders). 23 Dismissal is appropriate under the foregoing analysis “where at least four 24 factors support dismissal . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support 25 dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) 26 (citations omitted). 27 28 3 Case 5:20-cv-00172-CJC-JC Document 39 Filed 03/09/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:192
1 III. DISCUSSION AND ORDERS 2 First, as noted above, the Court has reviewed the Second OSC, agrees with 3 the Second OSC, and finds that the Second OSC was properly issued for the 4 reasons discussed therein. 5 Second, as the above-referenced procedural history reflects, Plaintiff has 6 repeatedly been notified of his obligation to comply with the Stay Order/Modified 7 Stay Order and to file regular status reports and has entirely failed to file the 8 requisite status report that was due in December 2021. Most recently, the Second 9 OSC again afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to explain his failure to file a requisite 10 status report and to show cause why this action should not be dismissed based 11 upon his failure to comply with the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order and to 12 prosecute this action. It further cautioned Plaintiff that his failure timely to 13 respond to the Second OSC may result in the dismissal of this action based upon 14 his failure to comply with the Court’s Orders and/or to prosecute this action. 15 Plaintiff has not responded. 16 Finally, upon consideration of the five factors noted above, the Court finds 17 that Plaintiff’s unreasonable failure to prosecute his case and failure to comply 18 with the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order and the Second OSC warrant dismissal as 19 four factors support dismissal, and at least three factors strongly support dismissal. 20 The first two factors – the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 21 and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The 22 Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely awaiting Plaintiff’s response 23 to the Court’s directives. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also 24 weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 25 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 26 Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, the public policy 27 favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in 28 favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as Plaintiff has already been 4 Case 5:20-cv-00172-CJC-JC Document 39 Filed 03/09/22 Page5of5 Page ID #:193
1 || cautioned of the consequences of his failure to prosecute and his failure to comply 2 || with the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order and the Second OSC, has been afforded 3 || the opportunity to do so, and has not responded, no sanction lesser than dismissal 4 || without prejudice is appropriate. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without 6 || prejudice based upon Plaintiff's unreasonable failure to prosecute and his failure to 7 || comply with the Stay Order/Modified Stay Order and the Second OSC, and that 8 || Judgment be entered accordingly. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of the instant 10 | Memorandum Opinion and Order Dismissing Action and the Judgment on Plaintiff 11 } and any counsel for Defendants. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | DATED: March 9, 2022 14 □□ [ = 16 HONORABLE CORMAC J. ZARNEY 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28