Dunn v. Marclite Electrical Corporation Florida

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00565
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 EMMA DUNN and ALANA DUNN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00565-JLT-BAM 11 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 12 v. FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 13 MARCLITE ELECTRICAL CORPORATION, et al., (Doc. 2) 14 Defendants. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 15 16 17 Plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn, proceeding pro se, filed this action on May 12, 18 2025. (Doc. 1.) The complaint was not signed by either plaintiff. 19 On May 15, 2025, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiffs’ unsigned complaint. (Doc. 20 2.) The Court also directed Plaintiffs to file a signed complaint within thirty days of service of 21 the Court’s order. (Id.) Plaintiffs were expressly warned that that failure to comply with the 22 Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a 23 court order. (Id.) 24 The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a signed complaint has passed. Plaintiffs have not 25 complied with the Court’s order or otherwise communicated with the Court. 26 I. Discussion 27 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 28 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 1 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 2 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 3 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 4 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 5 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 6 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 7 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 8 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 9 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also 10 provides for dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute.1 11 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) 12 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 13 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 14 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 15 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 16 Here, this action has been pending May 12, 2025, and Plaintiffs’ signed complaint is 17 overdue. The action cannot proceed without a signed complaint. The action also cannot proceed 18 without Plaintiffs’ cooperation and compliance with the Court’s orders and Local Rules. 19 Moreover, the Court cannot hold this case in abeyance awaiting compliance by Plaintiffs. The 20 Court additionally cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiffs cease litigating their case. 21 Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 22 The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, as a 23 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 24 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs 25 against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 26 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose 27 1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 28 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 1 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 2 progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. 3 Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Additionally, given the 4 Plaintiffs’ failure to file a signed complaint or otherwise communicate with the Court, there are 5 no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this action. Id. 6 at 1228–29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. 7 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the Court’s order will result in 8 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 9 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s May 15, 2025 order expressly 10 warned Plaintiffs that their failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action. (Doc. 2 at 11 2.) Thus, Plaintiffs had adequate warning that dismissal could result from their noncompliance. 12 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that 13 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 14 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Given Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the 15 Court’s order or communicate with the Court indicates that monetary sanctions are of little use.2 16 Further, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiffs 17 have ceased litigating their case. 18 II. Conclusion and Recommendation 19 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed based on 20 Plaintiffs’ failure to obey the Court’s order and failure to prosecute this action. 21 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 22 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 23 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiffs may 24 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 25 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 26 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 27 2 Plaintiffs have not filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the filing fee for this 28 action. 1 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 2 limit may not be considered. Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file objections within the 3 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 4 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 5 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 Dated: June 26, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28