(PC) Turner v. M. Pallares

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TREAUNA L. TURNER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01721-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION PALLARES, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 15 Defendants. FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF Nos. 8, 10, 12, 17) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE I. Background 20 Plaintiff Treauna L. Turner (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23 On February 17, 2022, the Court screened the complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Showalter for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims for relief against any other defendants. (ECF No. 8.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint or to notify the Court in writing that she does not wish to file a first amended complaint and is willing to proceed only on the cognizable claim identified. (Id. at 11–12.) The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that her failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 12.) Following three extensions of time, the deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or a notice of her willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims identified has expired, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order.

6 II. Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey a Court Order 7 A. Legal Standard 8 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .

10 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 15 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

19 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 23 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).

24 B. Discussion 25 Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint or notice of willingness to proceed on cognizable claims is overdue, and she has failed to comply with the Court’s order. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating her case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

1 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action.

3 Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 5 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

9 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s February 17, 2022 screening order expressly warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 8, p. 12.) The Court’s March 4, 2022, May 13, 2022, and June 27, 2022 orders granting Plaintiff’s motions for extensions of time contained the same express warning. (ECF Nos. 10, p. 3; 12, p. 3; 17, p. 3.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from her noncompliance.

18 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating her case.

23 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 24 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to this action.

26 Further, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a Court order and for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action.

1 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: September 13, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE