Rembert David Greeson, Jr. v. Unknown

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 15, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02779
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 O

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 REMBERT DAVID GREESON, JR., Case No. 2:23-cv-02779-SPG-KES

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK

14 UNKNOWN, OF PROSECUTION

15 Defendant.

18 I.

19 BACKGROUND

20 In April 2023, the Court received a letter from Rembert David Greeson, Jr. 21 (“Plaintiff”) stating that he was “being held in Santa Barbara Co[unty] Jail … on 22 false charges,” and that prison officials were falsely claiming he was incompetent to 23 stand trial. (Dkt. 1 at 1.) He appeared to allege that someone in Chattanooga, 24 Tennessee “filed fraudulent records” about him, and that people in jail and/or 25 Hollywood, California tried to poison him. (Id. at 2 (“I am also filing charges on 26 the jail and associates. They were starving me and dehydrating me near to death. 27 They tried to murder me with poison.”); id. at 3 (“This happened at the McDonalds 28 1 in Malibu and the Ralph’s in Ventura… someone sprayed it on my hands in 2 Hollywood and Beverly Hills park. The people from F.X. are responsible.”).) He 3 asked the court to contact the FBI and “secure” audio recorded evidence in his 4 “green Honda Civic [that] got towed….” (Id. at 1.) He also asked the Court for “a 5 non-prisoner complaint form and the local rules of this Court.” (Id. at 2.) 6 On April 13, 2023, the Clerk sent Plaintiff a notice indicating that within 7 thirty days, he needed to either pay the appropriate filing fee or request leave to 8 proceed without prepaying the fee. (Dkt. 2.) On May 5, 2023, that notice was 9 returned as undeliverable, with the note, “Vacant. Unable to forward.” (Dkt. 4.) It 10 appears that Plaintiff is no longer in custody at the Santa Barbara Jail. See Santa 11 Barbara County Inmate Locator, https://www.sbsheriff.org/home/who-is-in- 12 custody/ (showing “no matching results” for Plaintiff’s name or booking number). 13 As of the date of this order, the Court has not received any further filings 14 from Plaintiff, either updating his mailing address or indicating that he wishes to 15 keep pursuing this case. 16 II. 17 LEGAL STANDARD 18 A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to 19 follow court orders, or failure to comply with the federal or local rules. See Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Ghazali v. 21 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Central District of California 22 Local Rule 41-1 provides, “Civil suits which have been pending for an 23 unreasonable period of time without any action having been taken therein may, 24 after notice, be dismissed for want of prosecution.”1 Local Rule 41-6 provides: 25

26 1 The Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of 27 California are available online at: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/court- procedures/local-rules. 28 1 A party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and all other parties 2 informed of the party’s current address as well as any telephone 3 number and email address. If a Court order or other mail served on a 4 pro se plaintiff at his address of record is returned by the Postal 5 Service as undeliverable and the pro se party has not filed a notice of 6 change of address within 14 days of the service date of the order or 7 other Court document, the Court may dismiss the action with or 8 without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 9 L.R. 41-6. 10 The Court has discretion to dismiss the action with or without prejudice. See 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise,” or certain 12 exceptions apply, a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 13 “operates as an adjudication on the merits”); Local Rule 41-2 (“[u]nless the Court 14 provides otherwise, any dismissal pursuant to [Local Rule] 41-1 shall be without 15 prejudice”); Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1385 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Dismissal 16 with prejudice and default on counterclaims, for willful and inexcusable failure to 17 prosecute, are proper exercises of discretion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 41(b), 16(f), and the inherent power of the court.”). 19 In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to 20 comply with court orders, the Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to consider 21 the following five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 22 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 23 defendants; (4) the availability of less drastic sanctions; and (5) the public policy 24 favoring disposition of cases on their merits. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 25 Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). The test is not 26 “mechanical,” but provides a “non-exhaustive list of things” to “think about.” 27 Valley Eng’rs v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). 28 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Here, the first two factors favor dismissal. The first factor—the public’s 4 interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation—“always favors dismissal.” 5 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The second factor— 6 the Court’s need to manage its docket—favors dismissal here because Plaintiff’s 7 “noncompliance has caused [this] action to come to a complete halt, thereby 8 allowing [him] to control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Id. (internal 9 quotations marks omitted). 10 The third factor—prejudice to Defendants—weighs in favor of dismissal, 11 although perhaps not as strongly as some of the other factors because no defendants 12 have been named or served. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 13 2002) (“We have previously recognized that pendency of a lawsuit is not 14 sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.”); Hunter v. Sandoval, 15 No. 17-cv-09257-CJC-SHK, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210543 at *5, 2018 WL 16 6570870 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2018) (finding no prejudice to a defendant who 17 had not yet been served). On the other hand, a rebuttable presumption of prejudice 18 to the defendants arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays prosecution of an 19 action, In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994), and unnecessary delay 20 “inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will 21 become stale.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. 22 The fourth factor—availability of less drastic sanctions—favors dismissal. 23 The Clerk’s notice warned Plaintiff, “If you do not respond within THIRTY DAYS 24 from the date of this letter, your case may be dismissed.” See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 25 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (“a district court’s warning to a party that his 26 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the 27 ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement”) (citation omitted). 28 The fifth factor—public policy favoring a disposition of an action on its 1 | merits—arguably weighs against dismissal here. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 2 | 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the effect of this factor is mitigated by the fact 3 | that Plaintiffs letter fails to state a claim for relief, because it does not name any 4 | specific defendants or explain what cause(s) of action he is trying to pursue. 5 Given that the enumerated factors largely support dismissal, this action will 6 | be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) and Local Rule 41-1. Considering all of the 7 | circumstances, and in particular given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the 8 | dismissal shall be without prejudice. 9 IV. 10 CONCLUSION 1] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment will be entered dismissing 12 | this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 13 14 | DATED: May 15, 2023 lp aaa 15 SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 | Presented by: 18 □□□ . Scot? 19 | KAREN E. SCOTT 99 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21

23 24 25 26 27 28