1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 CHARLES FRANCIS GOODS, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-662 AWI JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT 13 v. ) PREJUDICE
14 CITY OF BAKERFIELD POLICE DEPT., et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16
17 Charles Francis asserts Officer Teri Harless used excessive force against Plaintiff while placing 18 him under arrest and is liable for a violation of his civil rights. (See generally Doc. 5) Because Plaintiff 19 has failed to comply with the Local Rules and failed to prosecute this action, the Court recommends the 20 matter be DISMISSED. 21 I. Relevant Background 22 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint against the City of Bakersfield’s Police 23 Department and several of its officers on May 15, 2019. (Doc. 1) Because Plaintiff sought to proceed 24 in forma pauperis, the Court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which 25 provides the Court “shall dismiss the complaint if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on 26 which relief may be granted; or … seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief.” Although the Court determined Plaintiff initially failed to allege facts sufficient to 28 support his claims, Plaintiff was given leave to amend his complaint. (Doc. 3) 1 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on June 6, 2019. (Doc. 5) The Court found Plaintiff 2 alleged facts sufficient to support a claim for excessive force against Officer Harless but failed to state 3 a claim against the other defendants identified. (Doc. 6 at 5-6) Therefore, Plaintiff was informed he 4 could proceed in the action either by attempting to amend his complaint or proceed on the cognizable 5 claim against Officer Harless. (Id. at 7) Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the 6 cognizable claim, and he later dismissed the other claims pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure. (Doc. 12) 8 The Court issued a scheduling order in the action on February 6, 2020. (Doc. 21) However, the 9 Court’s order was returned as “Undeliverable, Refused; Return to Sender” by the United States Postal 10 Service on March 10, 2020. To date, Plaintiff’s correct address remains unknown, and he has not 11 identified a proper mailing address for the Court. 12 II. Requirements of the Local Rules 13 Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the 14 Court apprised of his current address: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is 15 returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties 16 within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 17 prejudice for failure to prosecute.” LR 183(b). 18 Because more than 63 days have passed since the order was returned as undeliverable, Plaintiff 19 has failed to comply with the Local Rules. 20 III. Failure to Prosecute 21 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 22 court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 23 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a 24 party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 25 rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure to comply 26 with local rules); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 27 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 28 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with local rules). 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the 2 Local Rules, or failure to obey a court order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) 3 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 4 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 5 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also 6 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. 7 IV. Discussion and Analysis 8 To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 9 the Local Rules, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in 10 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice 11 to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 12 availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 13 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831. 14 A. Public interest and the Court’s docket 15 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 16 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 17 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 18 favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 19 managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will 20 not hold, this case in abeyance based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and 21 failure to take action to continue prosecution in a timely manner. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & 22 Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining a plaintiff has the burden “to move toward… 23 disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics”). Accordingly, these 24 factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the action. 25 B. Prejudice to Defendants 26 To determine whether the defendants have been prejudiced, the Court must “examine whether 27 the plaintiff’s actions impair the … ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision 28 of the case.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 769 F.2d 611, 618 1 (9th Cir. 1985)). Significantly, a presumption of prejudiced arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays 2 the prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Because 3 Plaintiff has ceased prosecution of the action and has not communicated a proper mailing address to the 4 Court, Defendants have been prejudiced through the delays caused by Plaintiff. Thus, this factor 5 weighs in favor of dismissal. 6 C. Consideration of less drastic sanctions 7 The Court “abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering 8 the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” United States v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 CHARLES FRANCIS GOODS, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-662 AWI JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT 13 v. ) PREJUDICE
14 CITY OF BAKERFIELD POLICE DEPT., et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16
17 Charles Francis asserts Officer Teri Harless used excessive force against Plaintiff while placing 18 him under arrest and is liable for a violation of his civil rights. (See generally Doc. 5) Because Plaintiff 19 has failed to comply with the Local Rules and failed to prosecute this action, the Court recommends the 20 matter be DISMISSED. 21 I. Relevant Background 22 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint against the City of Bakersfield’s Police 23 Department and several of its officers on May 15, 2019. (Doc. 1) Because Plaintiff sought to proceed 24 in forma pauperis, the Court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which 25 provides the Court “shall dismiss the complaint if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on 26 which relief may be granted; or … seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief.” Although the Court determined Plaintiff initially failed to allege facts sufficient to 28 support his claims, Plaintiff was given leave to amend his complaint. (Doc. 3) 1 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on June 6, 2019. (Doc. 5) The Court found Plaintiff 2 alleged facts sufficient to support a claim for excessive force against Officer Harless but failed to state 3 a claim against the other defendants identified. (Doc. 6 at 5-6) Therefore, Plaintiff was informed he 4 could proceed in the action either by attempting to amend his complaint or proceed on the cognizable 5 claim against Officer Harless. (Id. at 7) Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the 6 cognizable claim, and he later dismissed the other claims pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure. (Doc. 12) 8 The Court issued a scheduling order in the action on February 6, 2020. (Doc. 21) However, the 9 Court’s order was returned as “Undeliverable, Refused; Return to Sender” by the United States Postal 10 Service on March 10, 2020. To date, Plaintiff’s correct address remains unknown, and he has not 11 identified a proper mailing address for the Court. 12 II. Requirements of the Local Rules 13 Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the 14 Court apprised of his current address: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is 15 returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties 16 within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 17 prejudice for failure to prosecute.” LR 183(b). 18 Because more than 63 days have passed since the order was returned as undeliverable, Plaintiff 19 has failed to comply with the Local Rules. 20 III. Failure to Prosecute 21 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 22 court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 23 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a 24 party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 25 rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure to comply 26 with local rules); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 27 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 28 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with local rules). 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the 2 Local Rules, or failure to obey a court order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) 3 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 4 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 5 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also 6 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. 7 IV. Discussion and Analysis 8 To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 9 the Local Rules, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in 10 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice 11 to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 12 availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 13 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831. 14 A. Public interest and the Court’s docket 15 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 16 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 17 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 18 favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 19 managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will 20 not hold, this case in abeyance based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and 21 failure to take action to continue prosecution in a timely manner. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & 22 Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining a plaintiff has the burden “to move toward… 23 disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics”). Accordingly, these 24 factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the action. 25 B. Prejudice to Defendants 26 To determine whether the defendants have been prejudiced, the Court must “examine whether 27 the plaintiff’s actions impair the … ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision 28 of the case.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 769 F.2d 611, 618 1 (9th Cir. 1985)). Significantly, a presumption of prejudiced arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays 2 the prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Because 3 Plaintiff has ceased prosecution of the action and has not communicated a proper mailing address to the 4 Court, Defendants have been prejudiced through the delays caused by Plaintiff. Thus, this factor 5 weighs in favor of dismissal. 6 C. Consideration of less drastic sanctions 7 The Court “abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering 8 the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” United States v. Nat’l Medical 9 Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). However, no lesser sanction is feasible given the 10 Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff. 11 D. Public policy 12 Given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and prosecute the action, the policy 13 favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. See 14 Malone, 833 F.2d at 133, n.2 (explaining that although “the public policy favoring disposition of cases 15 on their merits . . . weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”). 16 V. Findings and Recommendations 17 Plaintiff has failed to follow the requirements of the Local Rules or to prosecute this action. 18 As set forth above, the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of dismissal of the matter. 19 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS: 20 1. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice; 21 2. The remaining motions be terminated as moot; and 22 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action. 23 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 25 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen 26 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 1 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 Dated: May 13, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28