Sanchez v. Rigney

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 27, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00259
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JASMINE SANCHEZ, Case No. 3:22-cv-00259-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CHET RIGNEY, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Jasmine Sanchez, currently incarcerated in the custody of the 13 Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 14 (ECF No. 10.) Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of United States 15 Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 51 (“R&R”)), recommending that the Court 16 dismiss Plaintiff’s action with prejudice and deny Plaintiff’s pending motions (ECF Nos. 17 45, 47, 56, 57, 59, 60)1. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the R&R. Because the Court 18 agrees with Judge Denney, and as further explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in 19 full. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice and denies Plaintiff’s 20 pending motions. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 The Court incorporates by reference Judge Denney’s description of the case’s 23 factual background and procedural history provided in the R&R, which the Court adopts. 24 (ECF No. 51 at 1-3.) 25 26

27 1After Judge Denney issued the R&R, Plaintiff filed four additional motions: (1) a motion for miscellaneous relief (ECF No. 56); (2) a “motion to use priority shipping 28 envelopes” (ECF No. 57); (3) a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 59); and (4) a “motion to obtain video feed of retaliation for attending a court order telephonic 2 Judge Denney recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s action “as an appropriate 3 sanction” under LR IA 11-8 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A). 4 (Id. at 3.) As grounds for dismissal, Judge Denney cited Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 5 the Court’s orders to “file a case management report and appear for the mandatory 6 telephonic [case management conference] on December 20, 2022.” (Id. at 4.) Moreover, 7 Judge Denney explains, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause at a subsequent show- 8 cause hearing justifying Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the case management conference. 9 (Id. at 3.) And “[e]ven more troubling, . . . Plaintiff provided false testimony about his 10 refusal to attend the [case management conference].” (Id.) 11 In determining whether sua sponte dismissal is an appropriate sanction, Judge 12 Denney notes and weighs the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the 13 case management conference unnecessarily delayed this action through additional 14 briefing and a show-cause hearing; (2) Plaintiff’s failure to appear prevented the Court 15 from expeditiously resolving this action; (3) Plaintiff’s conduct prejudiced Defendants by 16 requiring them to prepare for additional hearings and deadlines; and (4) the Court cannot 17 find any other non-monetary sanction that would adequately address Plaintiff’s conduct.2 18 (Id. at 4-5.) See also In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 19 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring the Court to weigh the following five factors in determining 20 whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order: “(1) the public’s 21 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 22 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 23 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions”) (citations and 24 quotation marks omitted). 25 In line with the Court’s authority to sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to 26 comply with court orders as well as the Court’s need to manage its docket, Judge Denney 27 2Judge Denney acknowledges that one of the five factors—the public policy 28 favoring disposition of cases on their merits—“weighs in Plaintiff’s favor, but this factor 1 || recommends dismissal with prejudice of this action and denial of Plaintiff's pending 2 || motions as moot. (/d. at 4-6.) See also LR IA 11-B; Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), 41(b); Pagtalunan 3 || v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 4 || 1984) (citations omitted); Pearson v. Dennison, 353 F.2d 24, 28 (9th Cir. 1965). 5 Because Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R, the Court need not review Judge 6 || Denney’s recommendations de novo; the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 7 || clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. 8 || P. 72(b), advisory committee note to 1983 amendments; see a/so 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 9 || Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (holding that when a party fails to object to a 10 || magistrate’s recommendation, the Court need not conduct “any review at all. . . of any 11 || issue that is not the subject of an objection”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 12 |} 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[D]e novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 13 || recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 14 || findings and recommendations.”). As the Court finds no clear error on the face of the 15 || record before it, the Court will accept and adopt the R&R in full. 16 || IV. CONCLUSION 17 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 18 || No. 51) is accepted and adopted in full. 19 It is further ordered that the Complaint (ECF No. 10) is dismissed with prejudice 20 || and without leave to amend. 21 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's pending motions (ECF Nos. 45, 47, 56, 57, 59, 22 || 60) be denied as moot. 23 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close 24 || this case. 25 DATED THIS 27" Day of January 2023.

27 MIRANDA M. DU 28 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE