Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tabatabaee v. Santoro, 1:14-cv-01545-LJO-GSA-PC. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170602885 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jun. 01, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 01, 2017
Summary: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER (ECF No. 68.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . On April 13, 2017, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 68.) The twenty-one day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an opposition
More

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 68.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

On April 13, 2017, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 68.) The twenty-one day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment or otherwise responded to the court's order.

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set forth in its order, "the Court must weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits." Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

"`The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,'" id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the action has been pending since October 2, 2014. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the court cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not defend his case against summary judgment. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, "pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal." Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, "delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses' memories will fade and evidence will become stale," id., and it is Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Given that Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, the court finds monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the court's order of April 13, 2017. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer