Michael Allen Soto v. Gardena Police Department

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-00583-RGK-MAA Document 20 Filed 06/02/22 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:144

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ALLEN SOTO, Case No. 2:21-cv-00583-RGK (MAA)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 v.

14 GARDENA POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17

18 I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 19 On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff Michael Allen Soto (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner 20 proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant 21 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On April 27, 2021, the Court granted 22 Plaintiff’s amended Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, on May 10, 24 2021, the Court screened and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. (ECF 25 No. 11.) On June 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12), 26 which the Court screened and dismissed with leave to amend on June 11, 2021 (ECF 27 No. 13). Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on August 25, 2021. 28 (SAC, ECF No. 15.) Case 2:21-cv-00583-RGK-MAA Document 20 Filed 06/02/22 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:145

1 On November 16, 2021, the Court screened and dismissed the SAC with leave 2 to amend (“Order-1”). (Order-1, ECF No. 16.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to, no 3 later than January 17, 2022, file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) that cured 4 the defects in Order-1. (Id. at 3.) The Court “cautioned that failure to respond to 5 this Order may result in dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice for failure to 6 prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order pursuant to Federal Rule 7 of Civil Procedure 41(b). See C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-1.” (Id. at 5.) 8 On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff sent a letter requesting an extension of time to 9 file a TAC, which the clerk docketed on December 29, 2022. (ECF No. 17.) On 10 January 3, 2022, the Court granted the request and extended Plaintiff’s deadline to 11 file a TAC to February 16, 2022 (“Order-2”). (Order-2, ECF No. 18.) The Court 12 again “cautioned that failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal 13 of the lawsuit without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to 14 comply with a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 15 See C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-1.” (Id.) 16 On March 24, 2022, in the absence of a filed TAC or response to Order-2, the 17 Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Plaintiff to show cause by April 25, 18 2022 why the Court should not recommend that the case be dismissed for want of 19 prosecution (“Order-3”). (Order-3, at 1, ECF No. 19.) The Court stated that if 20 Plaintiff filed a TAC or a notice of dismissal on or before such date, the Order-3 21 would be discharged, and no additional action need be taken. (Id.) The Court again 22 “advised that failure to comply with this order w[ould] result in a 23 recommendation that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 24 prosecute and/or comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); C.D. Cal. 25 L.R. 41-1.” (Id. at 2.) 26 To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a TAC or respond to Order-2 or Order-3. 27 Indeed, Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since December 8, 2021. 28 ///

2 Case 2:21-cv-00583-RGK-MAA Document 20 Filed 06/02/22 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:146

1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 District courts may dismiss cases sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for 3 failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 4 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); 5 see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (holding that the 6 court has “inherent power” to dismiss cases sua sponte for lack of prosecution). 7 Unless the Court states otherwise, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) operates as an 8 adjudication on the merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “Dismissal is a harsh penalty and 9 is to be imposed only in extreme circumstances.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine 10 (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. 11 USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 12 “A Rule 41(b) dismissal ‘must be supported by a showing of unreasonable 13 delay.’” Omstead v. Dell, 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Henderson 14 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). In addition, the court must weigh 15 the following factors in determining whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is warranted: 16 “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 17 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants/respondents; (4) the 18 availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition 19 of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). 20 The Ninth Circuit will “affirm a dismissal where at least four factors support 21 dismissal, or where at least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Dreith v. Nu 22 Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 23 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Finally, “in order to warrant a sanction of 24 dismissal, the party’s violations of the court’s orders must be due to wilfulness or 25 bad faith.” Id. 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///

3 Case 2:21-cv-00583-RGK-MAA Document 20 Filed 06/02/22 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:147

1 III. ANALYSIS 2 A. The Public’s Interest in Expeditious Resolution and the Court’s 3 Need to Manage Its Docket 4 The first and second factors (the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 5 litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket)1 weigh in favor of dismissal. 6 “Orderly and expeditious resolution of disputes is of great importance to the rule of 7 law.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1227. “The public’s interest in 8 expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d 9 at 642 (quoting Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990). In addition, district courts “have an 10 inherent power to control their dockets,” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 11 1227 (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 12 1986)), and “are best suited to determine when delay in a particular case interferes 13 with docket management and the public interest.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 14 (quoting Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984)). 15 Plaintiff has failed to file a TAC, has failed to respond to Order-2 and Order- 16 3, and otherwise has not participated in this lawsuit since December 8, 2021. The 17 Court concludes that Plaintiff’s inaction and lack of communication with the Court 18 constitute willful unreasonable delay. See, e.g., Thomas v. Maricopa Cnty. Jail, 19 265 F. App’x. 606, 607 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that district court did not abuse its 20 discretion by dismissing pro se prisoner lawsuit for failure to respond to a court 21 order for almost three months). Plaintiff’s noncompliance also interferes with the 22 public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation and hinders the 23 Court’s ability to manage its docket. See In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 24 1227 (“[The Ninth Circuit] defer[s] to the district court’s judgment about when a 25 delay becomes unreasonable ‘because it is in the best position to determine what 26 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).

4 Case 2:21-cv-00583-RGK-MAA Document 20 Filed 06/02/22 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:148

1 period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable.”) (quoting 2 In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1451)). The first and second factors favor dismissal. 3 4 B. Risk of Prejudice to Defendants 5 The third factor (risk of prejudice to the defendants) also weighs in favor of 6 dismissal. “A defendant suffers prejudice if the plaintiff’s actions impair the 7 defendant’s ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of 8 the case.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1227 (quoting Adriana Int’l 9 Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990)). “The law also presumes 10 prejudice from unreasonable delay.” Id. The risk of prejudice to a defendant is 11 related to a plaintiff’s reason for failure to prosecute an action. Pagtalunan, 291 12 F.3d at 642. “Whether prejudice is sufficient to support an order of dismissal is in 13 part judged with reference to the strength of the plaintiff’s excuse for the default.” 14 Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. 15 Plaintiff has refused to file a TAC or otherwise respond to Order-2 or Order- 16 3, without explanation. As “a presumption of prejudice arises from the plaintiff’s 17 unexplained failure to prosecute,” the third factor favors dismissal. See Hernandez 18 v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 400 (9th Cir. 1998). 19 20 C. Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives 21 The fourth factor (the availability of less drastic alternatives) also supports 22 dismissal. “The district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal 23 before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 24 alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 25 The Court considered and implemented less drastic alternatives prior to 26 dismissal. The Court warned Plaintiff three times that failure to file a TAC or 27 respond to the Court’s orders would result in a recommendation that the action be 28 dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with Court orders

5 Case 2:21-cv-00583-RGK-MAA Document 20 Filed 06/02/22 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:149

1 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Order-1, Order-2, Order-3.) 2 See In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1229 (“Warning that failure to obey a 3 court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ 4 requirement.”). The Court also extended Plaintiff’s deadline to file a TAC twice, 5 from January 17, 2022 to February 16, 2022, and then again to April 25, 2022. See 6 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the district 7 court’s allowance of an additional thirty days for plaintiff to file an amended 8 complaint was an attempt at a less drastic sanction). The fourth factor weighs in 9 favor of dismissal. 10 11 D. Public Policy Favoring Disposition on the Merits 12 As to the fifth factor, “[p]ublic policy favors disposition of cases on the 13 merits.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. However, “a case that is stalled or 14 unreasonably delayed by a party’s failure to comply with deadlines . . . cannot move 15 toward resolution on the merits.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1228. 16 Thus, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a 17 case towards disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 18 direction.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The case has been stalled by 19 Plaintiff’s failure to file a TAC or otherwise respond to Order-2 or Order-3. Still, 20 the public policy favoring the resolution of disputes on the merits is strong and, 21 under the circumstances, outweighs Plaintiff’s noncompliance and inaction. 22 23 E. Dismissal Without Prejudice 24 In summary, Plaintiff’s failure to file a TAC or otherwise respond to Order-2 25 or Order-3, and failure to otherwise participate in this lawsuit since December 8, 26 2021 constitute willful unreasonable delay. Four of the Rule 41(b) dismissal factors 27 weigh in favor of dismissal, whereas only one factor weighs against dismissal. 28 “While the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits weighs

6 Case 2:21-cv-00583-RGK-MAA Document 20 Filed 06/02/22 Page 7of7 Page ID #:150

1 || against [dismissal], that single factor is not enough to preclude imposition of this 2 || sanction when the other four factors weigh in its favor.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio 3 || Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court concludes that 4 || dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and to comply with Court orders is 5 || warranted, but, consistent with Rule 41(b) and this Court’s exercise of its 6 || discretion, the dismissal is without prejudice. 8 || IV. CONCLUSION 9 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this lawsuit is DISMISSED without 10 || prejudice. No further filings shall be accepted under this case number. 11 12 (4 kk 13 || DATED: June 2, 2022 14 R. GARY KLAUSNER 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 || Presented by: 17 ° yet omc — 19 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28