Christopher White v. Los Angeles County

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00109-JAK-MAA Document 15 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:132

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER WHITE, Case No. 2:22-cv-00109-JAK (MAA)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 v.

14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al.,

15 Defendants. 16

17 I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 18 On January 5, 2022, Plaintiff Christopher White (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro 19 se, filed a Complaint alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 20 § 1983 (“Section 1983”). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) That same day, Plaintiff also filed 21 a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2), which the Court granted on 22 January 12, 2022 (ECF No. 5). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court 23 screened and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend on March 3, 2022. 24 (ECF No. 8.) 25 On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 26 (FAC, ECF No. 11.) On May 31, 2022, the Court screened and dismissed the FAC 27 with leave to amend (“Order”). (Order, ECF No. 13.) The Court ordered Plaintiff 28 to file a response to the Order, no later than June 27, 2022, electing to proceed with Case 2:22-cv-00109-JAK-MAA Document 15 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:133

1 one of the following options: (1) file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”); 2 (2) proceed with the FAC; or (3) voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 11–13.) The Court 3 cautioned Plaintiff that “failure to respond to this Order may result in a 4 recommendation that this lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 5 prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order pursuant to Federal 6 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-1.” (Id. at 13.) 7 On July 18, 2022, in the absence of a filed SAC or other response to the 8 Order, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Plaintiff to show cause 9 by August 17, 2022 why the Court should not recommend that the case be 10 dismissed for want of prosecution (“OSC”). (OSC, ECF No. 14.) The Court stated 11 that if Plaintiff filed a SAC, notice to proceed with the FAC, or notice of dismissal 12 on or before such date, the OSC would be discharged, and no additional action need 13 be taken. (Id.) The Court again advised Plaintiff that “failure to comply with this 14 order will result in a recommendation that the lawsuit be dismissed for failure 15 to prosecute and/or comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); C.D. 16 Cal. L.R. 41-1.” (Id.) 17 To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a SAC or otherwise comply with the Order, 18 and has failed to respond to the OSC. Indeed, Plaintiff has not communicated with 19 the Court since May 11, 2022. 20 II. LEGAL STANDARD 21 District courts may dismiss cases sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for 22 failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 23 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); 24 see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (holding that the 25 court has “inherent power” to dismiss cases sua sponte for lack of prosecution). 26 Unless the Court states otherwise, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) operates as an 27 adjudication on the merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “Dismissal is a harsh penalty and 28 is to be imposed only in extreme circumstances.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine

2 Case 2:22-cv-00109-JAK-MAA Document 15 Filed 08/25/22 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:134

1 (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. 2 USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 3 “A Rule 41(b) dismissal ‘must be supported by a showing of unreasonable 4 delay.’” Omstead v. Dell, 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Henderson 5 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). In addition, the court must weigh 6 the following factors in determining whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is warranted: 7 “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 8 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants/respondents; (4) the 9 availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition 10 of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). 11 The Ninth Circuit will “affirm a dismissal where at least four factors support 12 dismissal, or where at least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Dreith v. Nu 13 Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 14 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Finally, “in order to warrant a sanction of 15 dismissal, the party’s violations of the court’s orders must be due to wilfulness or 16 bad faith.” Id. 17 III. ANALYSIS 18 A. The Public’s Interest in Expeditious Resolution and the Court’s 19 Need to Manage Its Docket 20 The first and second factors (the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 21 litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket)1 weigh in favor of dismissal. 22 “Orderly and expeditious resolution of disputes is of great importance to the rule of 23 law.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1227. “The public’s interest in 24 expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d 25 at 642 (quoting Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990). In addition, district courts “have an 26 inherent power to control their dockets,” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 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).

3 Case 2:22-cv-00109-JAK-MAA Document 15 Filed 08/25/22 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:135

1 1227 (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 2 1986)), and “are best suited to determine when delay in a particular case interferes 3 with docket management and the public interest.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 4 (quoting Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984)). 5 Plaintiff has failed to file a SAC or otherwise comply with the Order, has 6 failed to respond to the OSC, and has not participated in this lawsuit since May 11, 7 2022. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s inaction and lack of communication 8 with the Court constitute willful unreasonable delay. See, e.g., Thomas v. Maricopa 9 Cnty. Jail, 265 F. App’x. 606, 607 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that district court did 10 not abuse its discretion by dismissing pro se prisoner lawsuit for failure to respond 11 to a court order for almost three months). Plaintiff’s noncompliance also interferes 12 with the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation and hinders 13 the Court’s ability to manage its docket. See In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d 14 at 1227 (“[The Ninth Circuit] defer[s] to the district court’s judgment about when a 15 delay becomes unreasonable ‘because it is in the best position to determine what 16 period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable.”) (quoting 17 In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1451)). The first and second factors favor dismissal. 18 B. Risk of Prejudice to Defendants 19 The third factor (risk of prejudice to the defendants) also weighs in favor of 20 dismissal. “A defendant suffers prejudice if the plaintiff’s actions impair the 21 defendant’s ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of 22 the case.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1227 (quoting Adriana Int’l 23 Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990)). “The law also presumes 24 prejudice from unreasonable delay.” Id. The risk of prejudice to a defendant is 25 related to a plaintiff’s reason for failure to prosecute an action. Pagtalunan, 291 26 F.3d at 642. “Whether prejudice is sufficient to support an order of dismissal is in 27 part judged with reference to the strength of the plaintiff’s excuse for the default.” 28 Malone, 833 F.2d at 131.

4 Case 2:22-cv-00109-JAK-MAA Document 15 Filed 08/25/22 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:136

1 Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a SAC or otherwise comply with the Order, 2 and has failed to respond to the OSC. Indeed, Plaintiff has not communicated with 3 the Court since May 11, 2022. As “a presumption of prejudice arises from the 4 plaintiff’s unexplained failure to prosecute,” the third factor favors dismissal. See 5 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 400 (9th Cir. 1998). 6 C. Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives 7 The fourth factor (the availability of less drastic alternatives) also supports 8 dismissal. “The district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal 9 before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 10 alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 11 The Court considered and implemented less drastic alternatives prior to 12 dismissal. The Court twice warned Plaintiff that failure to respond to the Court’s 13 orders would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to 14 prosecute and/or failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of 15 Civil Procedure 41(b). See In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1229 16 (“Warning that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can itself meet 17 the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.”). The Court also extended 18 Plaintiff’s deadline to file a SAC or otherwise respond to the Order from June 22, 19 2022 to August 17, 2022. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 20 1992) (holding that the district court’s allowance of an additional thirty days for 21 plaintiff to file an amended complaint was an attempt at a less drastic sanction). 22 The fourth factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 23 D. Public Policy Favoring Disposition on the Merits 24 As to the fifth factor, “[p]ublic policy favors disposition of cases on the 25 merits.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. However, “a case that is stalled or 26 unreasonably delayed by a party’s failure to comply with deadlines . . . cannot move 27 toward resolution on the merits.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1228. 28 Thus, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a

5 Case 2:22-cv-00109-JAK-MAA Document15 Filed 08/25/22 PageGof6 Page ID #:137

1 || case towards disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 2 || direction.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). The case has been stalled by 3 || Plaintiff's failure to file a SAC or otherwise comply with the Order, and failure to 4 || respond to the OSC. Still, the public policy favoring the resolution of disputes on 5 || the merits is strong and, under the circumstances, outweighs Plaintiffs 6 || noncompliance and inaction. 7 E. Dismissal Without Prejudice 8 In summary, Plaintiffs failure to file a SAC or otherwise comply with the 9 || Order, failure to respond to the OSC, and failure to otherwise participate in this 10 || lawsuit since May 11, 2022, constitute willful unreasonable delay. Four of the Rule 11 || 41(b) dismissal factors weigh in favor of dismissal, whereas only one factor weighs 12 || against dismissal. “While the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 13 || merits weighs against [dismissal], that single factor is not enough to preclude 14 || imposition of this sanction when the other four factors weigh in its favor.” Rio 15 || Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’ Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court 16 || concludes that dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and to comply with 17 || Court orders is warranted, but, consistent with Rule 41(b) and this Court’s exercise 18 || of its discretion, the dismissal is without prejudice. 19 | IV. CONCLUSION 20 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this lawsuit is DISMISSED without 21 || prejudice. No further filings shall be accepted under this case number. 22 C) Wa IA 23 || DATED: _ August 25, 2022 □ 4 JOHN A. KRONSTADT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 || Presented by: 26 . 27 □□□ □ 28 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE