Opinion
2:21-cv-0466 WBS DB P
10-05-2022
RYAN NEIL SHROPSHIRE, Plaintiff, v. JOHN D'AGOSTINI, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims he received inadequate dental care while incarcerated in El Dorado County. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed.
Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address dated October 26, 2021, notifying the court of his new address and indicating that his release from custody was imminent. (ECF No. 15.) Additionally, review of the El Dorado County inmate locator website indicates that plaintiff is no longer in custody. The court may take judicial notice of information stored on the Shasta County Sheriff's inmate locator website. See In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F.Supp.3d 1016, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (a court may take judicial notice of information on “publicly accessible websites” not subject to reasonable dispute); Louis v. McCormick Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F.Supp.2d 1153, 1155 fn. 4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of state agency records).
I. Motion to Compel
On June 6, 2022, defendant Danialson filed a motion to compel and for sanctions. (ECF No. 24.) Therein, Danialson alleged that plaintiff had not responded to discovery requests and failed to appear at a properly noticed deposition on May 26, 2022. (ECF No. 24-1 at 2-5.) Danialson requested that the court issue terminating sanctions or alternatively that plaintiff be compelled to respond to the discovery requests. (Id. at 6-13.) Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.
Because, as set forth below, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed, it will deny the motion to compel as moot. In the event the findings and recommendations are not adopted, defendant may file a renewed motion to compel.
II. Plaintiff's Failure to Oppose Defendant's Motion to Compel
By order dated August 24, 2022, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant Danialson's motion to compel within thirty days. (ECF No. 26.) Those thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an opposition, statement of nonopposition, requested additional time to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, or otherwise responded to the court's order. In light of plaintiff's failure to respond, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed.
The August 24, 2022, order was sent to plaintiff's address of record and was not returned as undeliverable. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
A. Legal Standards
“District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case.” Bautista v. L.A. Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)). Involuntary dismissal is one of the harshest sanctions at a trial court's disposal, since it denies the plaintiff his day in court; and as a result, it is reserved for use only in the most extreme circumstances. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court 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; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61.
B. Analysis
1. Public's Interest in Expeditious Resolution of Litigation
“The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999).
This action has been pending since January 1, 2021. (ECF No. 1 at 19.) Defendant Danialson's motion to compel was filed on June 6, 2022. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address dated October 26, 2021. (ECF No. 15.) Since that time, he has not responded to defendant's discovery requests or orders from the court. His failure has prevented this action from moving forward. Accordingly, this factor favors dismissal.
Under the prison mailbox rule, a document is deemed served or filed on the date a prisoner signs the document and gives it to prison officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prison mailbox rule); Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying the mailbox rule to both state and federal filings by incarcerated inmates).
2. Court's Need to Manage its Docket
“District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1961)).
As set forth above, plaintiff has not participated in discovery or responded to court orders since October 2021. Thus, it appears he has lost interest in litigating this action. Further, time spent by the court on this action would consume scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which plaintiff demonstrates no intention to pursue. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
3. Risk of Prejudice to Defendants
“To prove prejudice, a defendant must establish that plaintiff's actions impaired defendant's ability to proceed to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987)). The “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991).
Plaintiff's failure to participate in discovery has prejudice defendants because it impairs defendants' ability to determine relevant defenses to plaintiff's claims and has delayed resolution. See Kirkelie v. Thissell, No. 1:15-cv-00735 DAD SAB (PC), 2018 WL 1272227 at *2 (Plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery requests “significantly impairs the Defendants' ability to go to trial and determine whether Plaintiff has adequately exhausted administrative remedies and to make rightful and informed decisions as to whether this affirmative defense should be explored. Plaintiff['s] failure to respond to discovery has created an unreasonable delay, which in turn[] creates a presumption of prejudice.”); see also Granderson v. California Corrections Rehabilitations, No. 2:19-cv-2211 JAM AC, 2022 WL 2333964 at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2022) (finding plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery requests and refusal to attend a properly noticed deposition was prejudicial to defendants). Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
4. Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives
Warning a plaintiff that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can suffice to meet the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Malone, 833 F.2d at 132 (citing Buss v. Western Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 1053, 1054 (9th Cir. 1984)).
Plaintiff was previously advised that failure to respond to the court's order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 26.) In light of the court's warning, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
5. Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on Their Merits
Public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits. Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). The undersigned finds that four of the five Ferdik factors supports dismissal, and thus, outweigh the general public policy favoring disposition on the merits. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Danialson's motion to compel (ECF No. 24) is denied as moot.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that the 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).