Jackie Stapleton v. United Healthcare Benefits Plan of California

[9] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [10] EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [11] 12 JACKIE STAPLETON, Case No. 1:25-cv-00351-JLT-SAB 13 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 14 v. (ECF Nos. 28, 29) 15 UNITED HEALTHCARE BENEFITS PLAN OF CALIFORNIA, OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 16 DAYS Defendant. [17] 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action and has received permission to file electronically 19 pursuant to Local Rule 133(b)(3). (ECF Nos. 1, 15.) On August 21, 2025, the assigned District 20 Judge adopted in full this Court’s findings and recommendations recommending granting 21 Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying Plaintiff’s motion for remand. (ECF No. 29.) In its 22 order, the District Judge gave Plaintiff leave to amend but admonished Plaintiff that she is “advised 23 that failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action for failure to 24 prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order.” (Id. at p. 3.) (emphasis in original). The 25 deadline for Plaintiff to file her amended complaint has now passed, and the Court will now 26 recommend that this matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the 27 Court’s August 21, 2025 order. / / / 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits courts to involuntarily dismiss an action when 4 a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 5 see also Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted); 6 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he 7 consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 8 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Similarly, Local Rule 110 permits courts 9 to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with a court order, and the procedural rules that 10 govern this Court are to be “construed, administered and employed by the court . . . to secure the 11 just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 12 Before dismissing an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, a court must consider: (1) the public 13 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage a docket; (3) the risk 14 of prejudice to defendant; (4) public policy favoring disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability 15 of less drastic sanctions. See Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 890 (noting that these five factors 16 “must be considered” before a Rule 41 involuntarily dismissal); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 17 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (reviewing the five factors and independently reviewing the record 18 because the district court did not make finding as to each). But see Bautista v. Los Angeles County, [19] 216 F.3d 837 , 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (listing the same but noting the court need not make explicit 20 findings as to each); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal 21 of pro se § 1983 action when plaintiff did not amend caption to remove “et al.” as the court directed 22 and reiterating that an explicit finding of each factor is not required by the district court). 23 Upon review of the above-stated factors, the Court finds dismissal of the action is warranted. 24 The expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to be in the public interest. Yourish v. California 25 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999). Turning to the second factor, the Court’s need to 26 efficiently manage its docket cannot be overstated. Given Plaintiff has failed to respond to the 27 District Judge’s August 21, 2025 order, the Court’s time is better spent on other matters than 1 time to waste on multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and requirements of our 2 courts.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance 3 of district court’s involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where the petitioner failed 4 to timely respond to court order, noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon the 5 size and load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our beleaguered 6 trial judges”). Delays have the inevitable and inherent risk that evidence will become stale or 7 witnesses’ memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, thereby satisfying 8 the third factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). The instant dismissal is a dismissal 9 without prejudice, which addresses the fifth factor. 10 In sum, this case cannot linger indefinitely on this Court’s already overburdened docket. A 11 dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders is in accord 12 with Ninth Circuit precedent as well precedent governing Rule 41 dismissals. It appears Plaintiff 13 has abandoned this action, and Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the District Judge’s order warrants 14 the sanction of dismissal without prejudice under the circumstances. 15 / / / 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 I. 2 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 3 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure 4 |to prosecute this action and/or comply with the Court’s order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and Local 5 | Rule 110. 6 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 7 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days 8 | after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 9 | with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The document should be captioned 10 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure 11 file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson 12 |v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014), citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 , 1394 13 | (9th Cir. 1991). [14] 5 T IS SO ORDERED. FA. Se 16 Pated: _ September 24, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 17 United States Magistrate Judge