Steven W. Chase v. J. Engleman

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 9, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-05641
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STEVEN W. CHASE, ) Case No. CV 22-5641-AB (JPR) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 12 v. ) TO STATE A CLAIM ) 13 J. ENGLEMAN, Warden, ) ) 14 Defendant. ) ) 15 ) 16 On June 20, 2023, the Court accepted the Magistrate Judge’s 17 Report and Recommendation and granted in part Defendant’s motion 18 for summary judgment in this civil-rights action, granting the 19 motion as to two of Plaintiff’s claims but denying it on a third. 20 The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint 21 properly stating that claim. Because of some confusion 22 concerning entry of the order on the docket, the Magistrate Judge 23 sua sponte extended Plaintiff’s deadline, giving him an 24 additional 28 days, or until October 13. He still has not filed 25 an amended complaint or requested an extension of time to do so, 26 and the Court’s review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’s Inmate 27 Locator website shows that he remains incarcerated at his address 28 of record. In her September 15 minute order extending the time 1 1 for him to file an amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge warned 2 Plaintiff that if he “fail[ed] to file a timely amended 3 complaint, his lawsuit w[ould] likely be dismissed.” 4 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per 5 curiam), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a pro se 6 plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to prosecute. See also Link v. 7 Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (“The power to invoke 8 [dismissal] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the 9 disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the 10 calendars of the District Courts.”). A court must consider “(1) 11 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 12 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 13 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability 15 of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 16 Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice 17 to the defendants that can be overcome only with an affirmative 18 showing of just cause by the plaintiff. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 19 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 20 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 21 militate in favor of dismissal. In particular, Plaintiff has 22 offered no explanation for his failure to file an amended 23 complaint fixing the deficiencies identified by the Court. Thus, 24 he has not rebutted the presumption of prejudice to Defendants. 25 No less drastic sanction is available, as the Complaint fails to 26 properly allege jurisdiction and therefore cannot proceed, and 27 Plaintiff is unable or unwilling to comply with the instructions 28 for fixing his allegations. Because his lawsuit cannot go 2 1 || forward in its current form, the Court is unable to manage its docket. Although the fourth Carey factor weighs against 3 || dismissal — as it always does — together the other factors 4 outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of the case on its 5l}merits. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261-63 (9th Cir. 6] 1992) (as amended) (upholding dismissal of pro se civil-rights 7 action for failure to timely file amended complaint remedying 8 || deficiencies in caption); Baskett v. Quinn, 225 F. App’x 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding dismissal of pro se civil-rights 10 |} action for failure to state claim or timely file amended 11 |} complaint). 12 ORDER 13 Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to 14 | prosecute and failure to state a claim. 15 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

17 | patvep: November 9, 2023 ANDRE BIROTTE JR. 18 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 19 1 Presented by: 50 hreablatt~ ean Rosenbluth 21})|U.S. Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28