Raul Hernandez v. County of Riverside

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 7, 2021
• Docket: 5:21-cv-00108
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAUL HERNANDEZ, ) Case No. EDCV 21-0108-DSF (JPR) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 12 v. ) TO STATE A CLAIM ) 13 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE et al., ) ) 14 Defendants. ) ) 15 ) 16 Plaintiff filed this civil-rights action in January 2021. 17 The Magistrate Judge dismissed it with leave to amend for failure 18 to state a claim. Instead of filing an amended complaint, he 19 appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which eventually dismissed his 20 appeal because there was no final order to appeal from. The 21 Magistrate Judge then ordered Plaintiff to file an amended 22 complaint complying with the earlier dismissal order, and he 23 again filed another document instead, a request “to submit briefs 24 without oral argument.” His deadline to file an amended 25 complaint was June 14 and he still has not done so or requested 26 an extension of time. 27 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per 28 curiam), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a pro se 1 1 plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to prosecute. See also Link v. 2 Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (“The power to invoke 3 [dismissal] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the 4 disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the 5 calendars of the District Courts.”). A court must consider “(1) 6 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 7 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 8 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 9 disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability 10 of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 11 Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice 12 to the defendant that can be overcome only with an affirmative 13 showing of just cause by the plaintiff. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 14 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 15 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 16 militate in favor of dismissal. In particular, Plaintiff has 17 offered no explanation for his failure to file an amended 18 complaint fixing the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate 19 Judge. Thus, he has not rebutted the presumption of prejudice to 20 Defendants. No less drastic sanction is available, as the 21 Complaint fails to state a claim and cannot be ordered served, 22 and Plaintiff is unable or unwilling to comply with the Court’s 23 instructions for fixing his allegations. Because none of his 24 claims can be ordered served, the Court is unable to manage its 25 docket. Although the fourth Carey factor weighs against 26 dismissal — as it always does — together the other factors 27 outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of the case on its 28 merits. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261-63 (9th Cir. 2 1 1992) (as amended) (upholding dismissal of pro se civil-rights action for failure to timely file amended complaint remedying 3 || deficiencies in caption); Baskett v. Quinn, 225 F. App’x 639, 640 4] (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding dismissal of pro se civil-rights 5 |} action for failure to state claim or timely file amended 6! complaint). 7 ORDER 8 Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim.! 10 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 11 Hohe To / 12 | parep: July 7, 2021 Prod LAM ip . cp tA DALE S. FISCHER 13 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 14 Presented by: 15 fru. Prenat Jean Rosenbluth Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | TT 28 The Court has read and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s April 1, 2021 dismissal order.