(PC) Estrada v. Pfeiffer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JAIME IGNACIO ESTRADA, No. 1:23-cv-00769-KES-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Docs. 14, 15) 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jamie Ignacio Estrada, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 9, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied as premature 22 because defendants had not yet been served and the court had not yet obtained personal 23 jurisdiction over the defendants. Doc. 14 at 2. The magistrate judge also recommended that 24 plaintiff’s motion for class certification be denied. Id. at 3 (citing McShane v. United States, 366 25 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966). Plaintiff was notified that any objections to the findings and 26 recommendations were to be filed within 14 days. Id. at 4. Plaintiff failed to file any objections 27 and the time to do so has passed. See docket. 28 Also on April 9, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a screening order finding the complaint 1 failed to state a claim. See Doc. 12 at 11. The complaint also sought monetary relief from certain 2 defendants in their official capacity who were immune from such relief. Id. at 13. Plaintiff was 3 ordered to file an amended complaint within 30 days and warned that failure to file an amended 4 complaint might result in the dismissal of this action. Id. at 14. Plaintiff did not file an amended 5 complaint. See docket. 6 On May 22, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 7 recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the court’s 8 order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Doc. 15. Plaintiff was provided notice 9 that any objections to these findings and recommendations were to be filed within 14 days. Doc. 10 15 at 2. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has passed. See docket. 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302, this Court 12 has conducted a de novo review in this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds 13 the findings and recommendations, Docs. 14–15, to be supported by the record and proper 14 analysis. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, Doc. 3, is DENIED as premature. 15 Plaintiff’s motion to certify class, Doc. 9, is also DENIED. 16 The Ninth Circuit has held that, prior to dismissing a case as a sanction for a plaintiff’s 17 failure to prosecute, a court must consider “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of 18 litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) 19 the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 20 drastic alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). 21 The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage 22 its docket weigh in favor of dismissal because the court cannot effectively manage its docket, nor 23 can the litigation be expeditiously resolved, if a plaintiff fails communicate with the court or file 24 the documents necessary to proceed with the litigation. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 25 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 26 favors dismissal.”). Plaintiff has not been in contact with the Court since November 20, 2023, see 27 Doc. 11, over a year ago as of the date of this order, and the first and second Henderson factors 28 therefore weigh in favor of dismissal. As to the third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendant 1 also weighs in favor of dismissal, given that unreasonable delay in a case gives rise to a 2 presumption of injury to the defendant. See, e.g., Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 3 (9th Cir. 1976). 4 While the fourth consideration, that public policy favors disposition of cases on their 5 merits, generally weighs against dismissal, here it lends little support “to a party whose 6 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 7 progress in that direction.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 8 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Despite instructions from the magistrate judge on 9 how to proceed, plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the 10 screening order. The fourth factor does not weigh against dismissal. 11 Finally, the fifth factor considers “whether the court has considered lesser sanctions, 12 whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the possibility of case- 13 dispositive sanctions.” Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 14 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). On April 9, 2024, plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended 15 complaint and was warned that failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in 16 dismissal. Id. Plaintiff again had the opportunity to object to the findings and recommendations 17 issued on May 22, 2024, which recommended dismissal of the complaint, but plaintiff has failed 18 to do so. As plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint and was warned 19 plaintiff that his failure to further prosecute this case would result in a recommendation of 20 dismissal, the fifth factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued April 9, 2024, Doc. 14, are ADOPTED IN 4 2. Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, Doc. 3, and plaintiff's motion to certify 5 class, Doc. 9, are DENIED. 6 3. The findings and recommendations issued May 22, 2024, Doc. 15, are ADOPTED IN 7 FULL, and this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. 8 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 9 10 11 | TPIS SO ORDERED. _ 12 Dated: _ December 27, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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