Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00221/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00221-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK McKENZIE,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CRAIG APKER,

 Defendant.

1:15-cv-00221-LJO-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY COURT ORDERS

(Docs. 2, 7.) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY 

(30) DAYS

On February 10, 2015 and March 30, 2015, the Court issued orders requiring Plaintiff to 

complete and submit the Court’s form indicating whether he will consent to the jurisdiction of a 

Magistrate Judge in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), within thirty days. (Docs. 2, 7.) The 

thirty-day deadlines have now passed, and Plaintiff has not submitted the Court’s form or 

otherwise responded to the Court's orders.

1

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives 

set forth in its order, Athe 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 

 

1 The Court’s first order was not returned to the court by mail. However, the United States Postal Service 

returned the second order on April 13, 2015, as undeliverable, with a notation on the envelope indicating that the 

mail was “Refused.” (Court Record.)

Case 1:15-cv-00221-LJO-GSA Document 9 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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)).

A>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 February 9, 2015. 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 help himself by 

litigating his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay 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 Court’s 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 February 10, 2015 and March 30, 2015. 

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 (30) 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00221-LJO-GSA Document 9 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is 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.

Dated: June 11, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00221-LJO-GSA Document 9 Filed 06/11/15 Page 3 of 3