Andrews v. Humboldt County

[4] 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 EUREKA DIVISION [8] 9 DERRICK CARL ANDREWS, Case No. 23-cv-02421-RMI 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH 11 v. PREJUDICE 12 HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al., 13 Defendants. [15] 16 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this case. Since filing his claim in May of 2023, 17 Plaintiff has failed to reply to motions, has not appeared at hearings, has not participated in the 18 case management conference, and has violated Federal and local rules and this court’s orders— 19 including an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. Plaintiff has not 20 responded to this court’s repeated attempts to engage Plaintiff in his own litigation. As such, 21 pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 41(b), this court has no recourse but to dismiss this 22 action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. 23 BACKGROUND 24 On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants alleging violation of 42 25 U.S.C § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Compl. (Dkt. 1) at 4-5. The parties 26 consented to this court’s jurisdiction (dkt. 6, 13) and in early August, Defendants filed a motion to 27 dismiss for failure to state a claim. Defs.’s Mot. (Dkt. 14). The deadline for Plaintiff’s response 1 appear. 2 As far as the court can surmise, Plaintiff’s last interaction with this case was a phone call 3 with Defendants’ attorney on August 8 to conduct the Rule 26(f) conference. (Dkt. 18) at 1. 4 Plaintiff expressed that he would review and provide additions to the joint case management 5 statement prepared by Defendants. Id. However, Plaintiff did not contact Defendants to provide 6 revisions and has not been heard from since. Defendants’ attorney emailed Plaintiff twice, on 7 August 16 and 21, to no avail. Id. at 2. In the end, Defendants were left with no option but to 8 submit a separate case management statement after they were unable to contact Plaintiff.1 Id. 9 Given Plaintiff’s apparent abandonment, the court issued an order to show cause on 10 September 12, setting a hearing for September 19 and ordering Plaintiff to appear and show cause 11 as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 12 court orders. (Dkt. 20). Plaintiff did not respond to the court’s order, nor did he appear at the show 13 cause hearing. Ultimately, the court has seen neither hide nor hair of Plaintiff since he consented 14 to jurisdiction four months ago. 15 DISCUSSION 16 The court has the “inherent power” to control its docket and may “impose sanctions, 17 including dismissal, in the exercise of that discretion.” Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th 18 Cir. 1992). Further, pursuant to Rule 41(b), dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when a 19 plaintiff fails to prosecute an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The court must weigh five factors 20 before dismissing for failure to prosecute: “1) the public’s interest in the expeditious disposition of 21 cases; 2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 4) the 22 judicial policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 5) the availability of a less drastic 23 sanction.” Moshin v. Cal. Dept. Water Resources, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 24 Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Although dismissal is a harsh 25 penalty and should not be imposed unless “extreme circumstances” exist (Thompson v. Housing 26 Authority, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)), it is appropriate when a plaintiff unduly delays [27] 1 prosecution. Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (upholding dismissal with prejudice where 2 Plaintiff failed to move litigation forward for four months). Dismissal is appropriate “where at 3 least four factors support dismissal…or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” 4 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). 5 The court notes, at the outset, that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 6 litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 . The second factor also supports 7 dismissal as Plaintiff’s inaction impairs the court’s ability to manage its docket. See e.g., id. 8 (finding the second factor “strongly favor[s]” dismissal when Plaintiff’s failure to timely amend 9 complaint brought “the action to a complete halt” and allowed plaintiffs “to control the pace of the 10 docket rather than the court.”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting 11 that a court must be able to manage its docket “without being subject to the routine noncompliance 12 of litigants”). Here, the court is stalled without Plaintiff’s participation, and, apart from dismissal, 13 can take no action to dispose of this case. 14 The third factor, prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal. A plaintiff’s 15 actions prejudice defendants when they “impair … the ability to go to trial or threaten the rightful 16 decision of the case.” Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987). Prejudice to 17 defendants is presumed when a plaintiff unreasonably delays prosecution. Anderson v. Air West, [18] 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Moreover, prejudice to the defendant is analyzed in relation to 19 the reason given by the plaintiff for their failure to prosecute. Pagtalunan, 219 F.3d at 642. When 20 a plaintiff offers “no clear explanations” for their failure to prosecute, courts find prejudice exists. 21 Id. (finding prejudice to defendants, who had yet to appear in the action, when Plaintiff did not 22 offer clear explanations for delay). 23 Here, Plaintiff’s failure to act has prejudiced Defendants, who, in compliance with this 24 court’s orders, have been preparing for and investing resources in defending against Plaintiff’s 25 claims. Defendants have repeatedly tried to contact Plaintiff to meet the court’s deadlines, 26 appeared at in-person hearings at the courthouse, and presented the court with robust filings in 27 defense of Plaintiff’s allegations—all without reciprocal action by Plaintiff. Moreover, as Plaintiff 1 evidence “become[s] stale, or witness’s memories [] fade or be[come] unavailable.” Martinez, at 2 2 (citing Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968)). Finally, Plaintiff has offered no “clear 3 explanations” for his failure to participate—indeed, Plaintiff has offered no explanations at all. 4 Thus, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 5 Public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, and this fourth factor always 6 weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). However, by 7 itself, it does not outweigh the other four factors. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128 (9th 8 Cir. 1987). 9 Finally, the availability of other sanctions, the fifth factor, weighs in favor of dismissal. 10 The court must consider less drastic alternatives before imposing a sanction of dismissal, but 11 “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case.” Henderson 12 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Nevijel v. North Coast Life Insurance Co., 651 13 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981). Where the Plaintiff has been warned that failure to comply with a 14 court order will result in dismissal, the fifth factor is satisfied. Malone, 883 F.2d at 113 (noting 15 that Rule 41(b) expressly states that failure to prosecute or to comply with local rules or court 16 orders will result in dismissal with prejudice). 17 Here, Plaintiff was notified that his inaction would lead to dismissal—that was precisely 18 the purpose of this court’s order to show cause. Additionally, any other sanction would be 19 ineffectual; the court cannot sanction an absent Plaintiff with warnings or reprimands. Dismissal is 20 appropriate. 21 In short, Plaintiff has failed to participate in preparation of the joint case management 22 statement in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Civil Local Rule 16-3; he has 23 failed to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; he has failed to appear at two subsequent 24 hearings, including the hearing to show cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed, all in 25 violation of this court’s orders. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action and has abandoned this 26 case. [27] 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 3 Procedure 41(b). A separate judgment shall issue. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: 10/10/2023 [7] ROBERT M. ILLMAN 8 United States Magistrate Judge [13] © [16] = 17 Z 18