From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clation v. Pendleton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 13, 2013
1:12-cv-01974-LJO-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013)

Opinion

1:12-cv-01974-LJO-GSA-PC

03-13-2013

TYRONE CLATION, Plaintiff, v. CARLA PENDLETON, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY

COURT ORDERS

(Docs. 3, 5.)


OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS

On December 4, 2012 and January 22, 2013, the Court issued orders requiring Plaintiff to complete and submit the Court's form indicating whether he would consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), within thirty days. (Docs. 3, 5.) The thirty-day deadlines have now expired, and Plaintiff has not submitted the completed form 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 December 4, 2012. 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 notify the Court whether he wishes to consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. 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 respond to the two Court orders 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. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, making 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 orders of December 4, 2012 and January 22, 2013.

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)(l). Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Clation v. Pendleton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 13, 2013
1:12-cv-01974-LJO-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013)
Case details for

Clation v. Pendleton

Case Details

Full title:TYRONE CLATION, Plaintiff, v. CARLA PENDLETON, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 13, 2013

Citations

1:12-cv-01974-LJO-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013)