Da’Juan Birden v. Munoz

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00937
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DA’JUAN BIRDEN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00937-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION 14 MUNOZ, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY 15 Defendant. COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 16 (ECF No. 8) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 I. Background 20 Plaintiff Da’Juan Birden is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 On August 6, 2025, the Court screened the complaint and found that Plaintiff successfully 23 raised excessive force and failure to protect claims in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 24 Defendant Munoz. (ECF No. 8.) However, because Plaintiff failed to provide a date when the 25 alleged violations of right occurred, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon 26 which relief may be granted and that the complaint could not be served. (Id. at 6-7.) The Court 27 therefore issued an order granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint within fourteen 28 (14) days. (Id. at 8.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply within the time allotted 1 may result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed. (Id.) The Court also indicated that 2 should Plaintiff fail to file an amended, then the Court would presume that Plaintiff wished to 3 proceed on his original complaint, which the Court determined failed to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted. (Id. n.2.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise 5 communicate with the Court, and the deadline to do so has expired. 6 II. Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey a Court Order 7 A. Legal Standard 8 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 9 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 10 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 11 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 12 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 13 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 14 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 15 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 16 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 17 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 18 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 19 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 20 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 21 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 22 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 23 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 24 B. Discussion 25 Here, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is overdue, and he has failed to comply with the 26 Court’s order. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his 27 case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 28 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 1 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 2 Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against 3 dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 4 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose 5 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 6 progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 7 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 8 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 9 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 10 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s August 6, 2025 screening 11 order expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to file an amended complaint within the time 12 allotted may result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed. (ECF No. 8.) Thus, 13 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. 14 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that 15 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 16 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in 17 this action, it appears that monetary sanctions will be of little use and the preclusion of evidence 18 or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case. 19 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 20 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 21 District Judge to this action. 22 Furthermore, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY 23 RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for Plaintiff’s 24 failure to prosecute this action. 25 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 27 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file 28 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 1 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages 2 or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if already in 3 the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be 4 considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 5 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. 6 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 7 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

10 Dated: October 8, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28