Brandon Eugene Hunter v. Richard Acosta

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02465
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON EUGENE HUNTER, Case No. 2:22-cv-02465-CAS (MAA)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 v.

14 RICHARD ACOSTA et al.,

15 Defendants.

16 17

18 I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 19 On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff Brandon Eugene Hunter (“Plaintiff”), a pretrial 20 detainee currently housed at Sacramento County Mail Jail, filed a pro se Complaint 21 alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF 22 No. 1.) On April 18, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 23 forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2, 4.) 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b), the Court screened and 25 dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend on May 31, 2022. (ECF No. 6.) On 26 June 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9), which the 27 Court screened and dismissed with leave to amend on August 29, 2022 (ECF No. 28 10). 1 On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint 2 (“SAC,” ECF No. 14), which the Court screened and dismissed with leave to amend 3 on January 23, 2023 (“Order,” ECF No. 15). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a 4 response to the Order, no later than February 22, 2023, electing to proceed with one 5 of the following options: (1) file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”); (2) proceed 6 with the SAC in its current form; or (3) voluntary dismissal. (Order 4–6.) The 7 Court cautioned Plaintiff that “failure to respond to this Order may result in a 8 recommendation that this lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 9 prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order pursuant to Federal 10 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-1.” (Id. at 6.) 11 On March 9, 2023, in the absence of a filed TAC or other response to the 12 Order, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Plaintiff to show cause 13 by April 10, 2023 why the Court should not recommend that the case be dismissed 14 for want of prosecution (“OSC”). (OSC, ECF No. 16.) The Court stated that if 15 Plaintiff filed a TAC or notice of dismissal on or before such date, the OSC would 16 be discharged, and no additional action need be taken. (Id.) The Court again 17 advised Plaintiff that “failure to comply with this order will result in a 18 recommendation that the lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or 19 comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-1.” (Id.) 20 To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a TAC or otherwise comply with the Order, 21 and has not responded to the OSC. Indeed, Plaintiff has not communicated with the 22 Court since filing the SAC on December 13, 2022. 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 District courts may dismiss cases sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for 25 failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 26 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); 27 see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (holding that the 28 court has “inherent power” to dismiss cases sua sponte for lack of prosecution). 1 Unless the Court states otherwise, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) operates as an 2 adjudication on the merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “Dismissal is a harsh penalty and 3 is to be imposed only in extreme circumstances.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine 4 (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. 5 USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 6 “A Rule 41(b) dismissal ‘must be supported by a showing of unreasonable 7 delay.’” Omstead v. Dell, 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Henderson 8 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). In addition, the court must weigh 9 the following factors in determining whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is warranted: 10 “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 11 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants/respondents; (4) the 12 availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition 13 of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 The Ninth Circuit will “affirm a dismissal where at least four factors support 15 dismissal, or where at least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Dreith v. Nu 16 Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 17 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Finally, “in order to warrant a sanction of 18 dismissal, the party’s violations of the court’s orders must be due to wilfulness or 19 bad faith.” Id. 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 A. The Public’s Interest in Expeditious Resolution and the Court’s 22 Need to Manage Its Docket 23 The first and second factors (the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 24 litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket)1 weigh in favor of dismissal. 25 “Orderly and expeditious resolution of disputes is of great importance to the rule of 26 law.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1227. “The public’s interest in 27 1 The first two factors are usually reviewed together “to determine if there is an 28 unreasonable delay.” In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452 (9th Cir. 1994). 1 expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d 2 at 642 (quoting Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990). In addition, district courts “have an 3 inherent power to control their dockets,” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 4 1227 (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)), 5 and “are best suited to determine when delay in a particular case interferes with 6 docket management and the public interest.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (quoting Ash 7 v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984)). 8 Plaintiff has failed to file a TAC or otherwise comply with the Order, has 9 failed to respond to the OSC, and has not participated in this lawsuit since 10 December 13, 2022. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s inaction and lack of 11 communication with the Court constitute willful unreasonable delay. See, e.g., 12 Thomas v. Maricopa Cnty. Jail, 265 F. App’x. 606, 607 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding 13 that district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing pro se prisoner lawsuit 14 for failure to respond to a court order for almost three months). Plaintiff’s 15 noncompliance also interferes with the public’s interest in the expeditious 16 resolution of this litigation and hinders the Court’s ability to manage its docket. See 17 In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1227 (“[The Ninth Circuit] defer[s] to the 18 district court’s judgment about when a delay becomes unreasonable ‘because it is in 19 the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket 20 becomes unmanageable.”) (quoting In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1451)). The first and 21 second factors favor dismissal. 22 B. Risk of Prejudice to Defendants 23 The third factor (risk of prejudice to the defendants) also weighs in favor of 24 dismissal. “A defendant suffers prejudice if the plaintiff’s actions impair the 25 defendant’s ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of 26 the case.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1227 (quoting Adriana Int’l 27 Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990)). “The law also presumes 28 prejudice from unreasonable delay.” Id. The risk of prejudice to a defendant is 1 related to a plaintiff’s reason for failure to prosecute an action. Pagtalunan, 291 2 F.3d at 642. “Whether prejudice is sufficient to support an order of dismissal is in 3 part judged with reference to the strength of the plaintiff’s excuse for the default.” 4 Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. 5 Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a TAC or otherwise comply with the Order, 6 and has failed to respond to the OSC. Indeed, Plaintiff has not participated in this 7 lawsuit since December 13, 2022. As “a presumption of prejudice arises from the 8 plaintiff’s unexplained failure to prosecute,” the third factor favors dismissal. See 9 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 400 (9th Cir. 1998). 10 C. Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives 11 The fourth factor (the availability of less drastic alternatives) also supports 12 dismissal. “The district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal 13 before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 14 alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 15 The Court considered and implemented less drastic alternatives prior to 16 dismissal. The Court twice warned Plaintiff that failure to respond to the Court’s 17 orders would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to 18 prosecute and/or failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 41(b). See In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1229 20 (“Warning that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can itself meet 21 the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.”). The Court also extended 22 Plaintiff’s deadline to file a TAC or otherwise respond to the Order from February 23 22, 2023 to April 10, 2023. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 24 1992) (holding that the district court’s allowance of an additional thirty days for 25 plaintiff to file an amended complaint was an attempt at a less drastic sanction). 26 The fourth factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 D. Public Policy Favoring Disposition on the Merits 2 As to the fifth factor, “[p]ublic policy favors disposition of cases on the 3 merits.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. However, “a case that is stalled or 4 unreasonably delayed by a party’s failure to comply with deadlines . . . cannot move 5 toward resolution on the merits.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1228. 6 Thus, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a 7 case towards disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 8 direction.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The case has been stalled by 9 Plaintiff’s failure to file a TAC or otherwise comply with the Order, and failure to 10 respond to the OSC. Still, the public policy favoring the resolution of disputes on 11 the merits is strong and, under the circumstances, outweighs Plaintiff’s non- 12 compliance and inaction. 13 E. Dismissal Without Prejudice 14 In summary, Plaintiff’s failures—to file a TAC or otherwise comply with the 15 Order, to respond to the OSC, and to otherwise participate in this lawsuit since 16 December 13, 2022—constitute willful unreasonable delay. Four of the Rule 41(b) 17 dismissal factors weigh in favor of dismissal, whereas only one factor weighs 18 against dismissal. “While the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 19 merits weighs against [dismissal], that single factor is not enough to preclude 20 imposition of this sanction when the other four factors weigh in its favor.” Rio 21 Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court 22 concludes that dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and to comply with 23 Court orders is warranted, but, consistent with Rule 41(b) and this Court’s exercise 24 of its discretion, the dismissal is without prejudice. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 | IV. CONCLUSION 2 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this lawsuit is DISMISSED without 3 || prejudice. No further filings shall be accepted under this case number. 4 esi 5 || DATED: April 27, 2023 cheat Argh 6 CHRISTINA A. SNYDER , UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 || Presented by: 9 10 □□ □ 11 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28