1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY GLEASON, ) Case No. CV 19-3742-DDP (JPR) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 13 v. ) PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY ) COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO STATE 14 J. GASTELO et al., ) ANY CLAIM ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 On May 1, 2019, Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding pro se, 18 filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against eight 19 employees of the California Men’s Colony state prison in San Luis 20 Obispo, where he was once housed. He sued all Defendants in 21 their official and individual capacities and sought declaratory 22 relief and compensatory and punitive damages. (See Compl. at 23 1-2, 11.) He was subsequently granted leave to proceed in forma 24 pauperis. On May 20, 2019, he filed an additional pleading, 25 stating new factual allegations and a request for injunctive 26 relief, which the Court deemed a supplement to the Complaint. 27 (Suppl. Compl. at 1, 3-4.) On July 22, 2019, before the Court 28 could screen the Complaint and its supplement, he filed a First 1 1 Amended Complaint, omitting three of the original eight 2 Defendants, several causes of action, and the request for 3 injunctive relief. (See FAC at 1-2.) On July 26, 2019, he 4 refiled the FAC, attaching summonses that he requested be served 5 with it. As best as can be deciphered, Plaintiff’s claims arise 6 from a December 2018 incident during which three correctional 7 officers allegedly assaulted him. 8 On August 13, 2019, after screening the FAC under 28 U.S.C. 9 §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, the Magistrate Judge dismissed it with 10 leave to amend because, among other deficiencies, it failed to 11 state any claim upon which relief could be granted. (See Order 12 Dismissing FAC at 5-9.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended 13 pleading no later than September 10, 2019, and was warned that 14 his failure to do so could result in dismissal of his lawsuit for 15 the reasons stated in the dismissal order or for failure to 16 diligently prosecute. (Id. at 10-11.) The Magistrate Judge 17 advised him that to the extent he believed the dismissal order 18 erroneously disposed of any of his claims, he could file 19 objections with the District Judge. (Id. at 11.) 20 On September 24, 2019, two weeks after his deadline to file 21 a second amended complaint or objections had passed, Plaintiff 22 filed objections in the Northern District of California, claiming 23 that he had erred by filing his lawsuit in the Central District, 24 asking for it to be transferred to the “proper venue,” and 25 requesting that the FAC be served on Defendants. His objections 26 were forwarded to this District. 27 On October 4, 2019, the Magistrate Judge denied his request 28 for a change of venue, correctly noting that the Central District 2 1 was the proper venue for his lawsuit. (See Oct. 4, 2019 Order at 2 2.) The Magistrate Judge explained that he had three options: he 3 could file a second amended complaint, remedying the deficiencies 4 discussed in the dismissal order; he could file objections with 5 the District Judge if he believed that order erroneously disposed 6 of any of his claims; or he could choose to stand on his claims 7 as pleaded, have the court dismiss them with prejudice, and 8 “then” seek appellate review. (See id. at 3 (citing Edwards v. 9 Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2004)).) The 10 Magistrate Judge warned that if instead of doing one of these 11 things he did “nothing” or “fil[ed] more documents contesting 12 venue or insisting that the FAC be served,” his lawsuit might be 13 dismissed. (Id. at 4.) 14 Instead of taking one of the three actions outlined by the 15 Magistrate Judge, on October 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice 16 of appeal in the Ninth Circuit. See Docketing Letter, Gleason v. 17 Gastelo, No. 19-56253 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2019), ECF No. 1. On 18 November 4, 2019, he filed in this Court “notice” of a “request 19 for summary judgment or arbitration”; on November 21, he moved 20 for “summary judgment or arbitration.” On November 22, 2019, the 21 Ninth Circuit dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 22 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), “the district 23 court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order 24 of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 25 1992) (as amended) (affirming district court’s dismissal of 26 action because pro se plaintiff failed to follow order to comply 27 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). Indeed, district courts have 28 inherent power to control their dockets, including the authority 3 1 to dismiss lawsuits. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 2 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 3 370 U.S. 626 (1961)). Because dismissal is a harsh penalty, it 4 should be imposed only in “extreme circumstances.” Id. But the 5 harshness of the penalty is “directly proportionate to the 6 likelihood that plaintiff would prevail if permitted to go 7 forward to trial.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th 8 Cir. 1996). 9 Plaintiff has clearly failed to comply with the Magistrate 10 Judge’s October 4 Order: he has not filed a FAC, objections to 11 the dismissal order, or notice that he wished to stand on his 12 claims, have the FAC dismissed without leave to amend, and appeal 13 that dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. Indeed, despite being given 14 multiple opportunities to remedy the deficiencies in the FAC, he 15 has instead persisted in making frivolous filings in this Court, 16 other district courts, and the Ninth Circuit. 17 Before dismissing a lawsuit under Rule 41(b), a court should 18 weigh five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 19 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 20 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 21 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 22 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 23 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted). Unreasonable delay creates a 24 rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants that can be 25 overcome only with an affirmative showing of just cause by the 26 plaintiff. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 27 1994). 28 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth factors militate 4 1 in favor of dismissal. This lawsuit has been pending since May 2 1, 2019, more than seven months, and despite ample opportunity to 3 do so Plaintiff still has not filed a viable complaint, has 4 offered no legitimate explanation for his refusal to even try to 5 do so, and has filed numerous baseless notices and requests. See 6 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (noting that first two factors “strongly 7 support” dismissal when case “dragged on for over a year and a 8 half before it finally was dismissed” and “consumed large amounts 9 of the court’s valuable time”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY GLEASON, ) Case No. CV 19-3742-DDP (JPR) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 13 v. ) PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY ) COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO STATE 14 J. GASTELO et al., ) ANY CLAIM ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 On May 1, 2019, Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding pro se, 18 filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against eight 19 employees of the California Men’s Colony state prison in San Luis 20 Obispo, where he was once housed. He sued all Defendants in 21 their official and individual capacities and sought declaratory 22 relief and compensatory and punitive damages. (See Compl. at 23 1-2, 11.) He was subsequently granted leave to proceed in forma 24 pauperis. On May 20, 2019, he filed an additional pleading, 25 stating new factual allegations and a request for injunctive 26 relief, which the Court deemed a supplement to the Complaint. 27 (Suppl. Compl. at 1, 3-4.) On July 22, 2019, before the Court 28 could screen the Complaint and its supplement, he filed a First 1 1 Amended Complaint, omitting three of the original eight 2 Defendants, several causes of action, and the request for 3 injunctive relief. (See FAC at 1-2.) On July 26, 2019, he 4 refiled the FAC, attaching summonses that he requested be served 5 with it. As best as can be deciphered, Plaintiff’s claims arise 6 from a December 2018 incident during which three correctional 7 officers allegedly assaulted him. 8 On August 13, 2019, after screening the FAC under 28 U.S.C. 9 §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, the Magistrate Judge dismissed it with 10 leave to amend because, among other deficiencies, it failed to 11 state any claim upon which relief could be granted. (See Order 12 Dismissing FAC at 5-9.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended 13 pleading no later than September 10, 2019, and was warned that 14 his failure to do so could result in dismissal of his lawsuit for 15 the reasons stated in the dismissal order or for failure to 16 diligently prosecute. (Id. at 10-11.) The Magistrate Judge 17 advised him that to the extent he believed the dismissal order 18 erroneously disposed of any of his claims, he could file 19 objections with the District Judge. (Id. at 11.) 20 On September 24, 2019, two weeks after his deadline to file 21 a second amended complaint or objections had passed, Plaintiff 22 filed objections in the Northern District of California, claiming 23 that he had erred by filing his lawsuit in the Central District, 24 asking for it to be transferred to the “proper venue,” and 25 requesting that the FAC be served on Defendants. His objections 26 were forwarded to this District. 27 On October 4, 2019, the Magistrate Judge denied his request 28 for a change of venue, correctly noting that the Central District 2 1 was the proper venue for his lawsuit. (See Oct. 4, 2019 Order at 2 2.) The Magistrate Judge explained that he had three options: he 3 could file a second amended complaint, remedying the deficiencies 4 discussed in the dismissal order; he could file objections with 5 the District Judge if he believed that order erroneously disposed 6 of any of his claims; or he could choose to stand on his claims 7 as pleaded, have the court dismiss them with prejudice, and 8 “then” seek appellate review. (See id. at 3 (citing Edwards v. 9 Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2004)).) The 10 Magistrate Judge warned that if instead of doing one of these 11 things he did “nothing” or “fil[ed] more documents contesting 12 venue or insisting that the FAC be served,” his lawsuit might be 13 dismissed. (Id. at 4.) 14 Instead of taking one of the three actions outlined by the 15 Magistrate Judge, on October 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice 16 of appeal in the Ninth Circuit. See Docketing Letter, Gleason v. 17 Gastelo, No. 19-56253 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2019), ECF No. 1. On 18 November 4, 2019, he filed in this Court “notice” of a “request 19 for summary judgment or arbitration”; on November 21, he moved 20 for “summary judgment or arbitration.” On November 22, 2019, the 21 Ninth Circuit dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 22 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), “the district 23 court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order 24 of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 25 1992) (as amended) (affirming district court’s dismissal of 26 action because pro se plaintiff failed to follow order to comply 27 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). Indeed, district courts have 28 inherent power to control their dockets, including the authority 3 1 to dismiss lawsuits. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 2 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 3 370 U.S. 626 (1961)). Because dismissal is a harsh penalty, it 4 should be imposed only in “extreme circumstances.” Id. But the 5 harshness of the penalty is “directly proportionate to the 6 likelihood that plaintiff would prevail if permitted to go 7 forward to trial.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th 8 Cir. 1996). 9 Plaintiff has clearly failed to comply with the Magistrate 10 Judge’s October 4 Order: he has not filed a FAC, objections to 11 the dismissal order, or notice that he wished to stand on his 12 claims, have the FAC dismissed without leave to amend, and appeal 13 that dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. Indeed, despite being given 14 multiple opportunities to remedy the deficiencies in the FAC, he 15 has instead persisted in making frivolous filings in this Court, 16 other district courts, and the Ninth Circuit. 17 Before dismissing a lawsuit under Rule 41(b), a court should 18 weigh five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 19 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 20 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 21 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 22 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 23 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted). Unreasonable delay creates a 24 rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants that can be 25 overcome only with an affirmative showing of just cause by the 26 plaintiff. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 27 1994). 28 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth factors militate 4 1 in favor of dismissal. This lawsuit has been pending since May 2 1, 2019, more than seven months, and despite ample opportunity to 3 do so Plaintiff still has not filed a viable complaint, has 4 offered no legitimate explanation for his refusal to even try to 5 do so, and has filed numerous baseless notices and requests. See 6 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (noting that first two factors “strongly 7 support” dismissal when case “dragged on for over a year and a 8 half before it finally was dismissed” and “consumed large amounts 9 of the court’s valuable time”). And his failure to rebut the 10 presumption that his delay has prejudiced Defendants warrants 11 dismissal under the third factor. Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1452-53. 12 Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge explained in the dismissal 13 order, the FAC “states mostly conclusory, disjointed allegations, 14 vague theories of liability, and few facts” about how and why the 15 alleged assault unfolded, the role of each Defendant during it, 16 what injuries he sustained, and what retaliation he has suffered 17 and by whom. (Order Dismissing FAC at 5-6.) Thus, no less 18 drastic sanction is available, as the FAC fails to state a claim 19 and should not be ordered served, but Plaintiff has refused to 20 even attempt to remedy its deficiencies despite being warned 21 numerous times that his failure to do so might result in 22 dismissal. (See Order Dismissing FAC at 10-11; Oct. 4, 2019 23 Order at 4.) 24 Although the fourth factor weighs against dismissal — as it 25 always does — together the other factors outweigh the public’s 26 interest in disposing of the case on its merits. See Seto v. 27 Thielen, 519 F. App’x 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2013) (upholding 28 dismissal of complaint when “[p]laintiffs repeatedly failed to 5 1 | comply with the district court’s orders to remedy the drastic 2 || shortcomings of their pleadings” and “were warned several times 3 |} that failure to comply . . . would result in automatic dismissal”). 5 ORDER 6 For the reasons discussed above, this action is dismissed 7 ||) with prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and 8 || failure to state any claim, and for the reasons stated in the 9 || Magistrate Judge’s August 13 and October 4, 2019 orders, which 10 || the Court has read and accepts. 11 12
13 || DATED: March 2, 2020 DEAN D. PREGERSON 14 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 || Presented by: 17 [i Prenat J€an P. Rosenbluth 18 |} U.S. Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28