Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00933/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00933-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Oscar Barajas,

Plaintiff

-vsBruno M. Stolc,

Defendant.

CV-11-0933-PHX-SRB (JFM)

Report & Recommendation

re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute

The undersigned makes the following proposed findings of fact, report, and 

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.2(a)(2), Local Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

Background - In this case, default has been entered against the sole remaining 

defendant, Defendant D. Miner, a correctional officer a Red Rock Correctional Center. 

(Doc. 20, Entry of Default.) Miner was served on August 9, 2011. (Doc. 12.) 

Plaintiff was given until November 22, 2011 to file a motion for default judgment 

or to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 

19, Order 11/8/11.)

Plaintiff responded by filing a Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 22), and a 

Response (Doc. 23). Plaintiff complained that he was unfamiliar with default 

proceedings, and sought documents from the Arizona Department of Corrections to 

establish the merits of his claims. The Motion to Compel was denied on the basis that 

the sole remaining issue was the nature of a default judgment, and the requested 

discovery did not appear to relate to damages, and the Court construed the Response as a 

Case 2:11-cv-00933-SRB Document 25 Filed 12/22/11 Page 1 of 4
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

motion to extend time to file a motion for a default judgment or otherwise respond to the 

order to show cause. Plaintiff was given an additional 14 days to respond, and was 

cautioned that failure to do so “will, in all likelihood be deemed a failure to prosecute, 

and is likely to result in dismissal.” (Order 11/28/11, Doc. 24.)

To date, Plaintiff has not responded, and the time to do so expired on December 

12, 2011.

Failure to Prosecute- Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. 

Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th 

Cir. 1978). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]f the 

plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may 

move to dismiss the action." In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 

(1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power 

to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a party. 

Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to 

prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id. at 633.

Here, Plaintiff has failed to timely comply with the Court’s order to show cause, 

and has failed to pursue a default judgment against the sole remaining defendant who is 

in default, or to otherwise prosecute this action.

In determining whether Plaintiff's failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the 

case, the Court must weigh the following five 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 the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 

Case 2:11-cv-00933-SRB Document 25 Filed 12/22/11 Page 2 of 4
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

1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986)). "The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, 

while the fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors 

are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions." Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 

656 (9th Cir. 1990).

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff's 

failure to respond to the order to show cause or take other action to prosecute prevents 

the case from proceeding in the foreseeable future. Plaintiff has repeatedly been pointed 

to Rule 55 and the default proceedings, but has failed to seek default judgment against 

Defendant Miner. (See Order 10/3/11, Doc. 15; Order 10/18/11, Doc. 17; Order 11/8/11, 

Doc. 19; and Order 11/28/11, Doc. 24.) 

The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. 

The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is 

available. The undersigned finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically 

available. Rule 41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an 

adjudication upon the merits "[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise 

specifies." In the instant case, the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be 

unnecessarily harsh. The Complaint and this action should therefore be dismissed 

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) and this 

action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

/ /

/ /

Case 2:11-cv-00933-SRB Document 25 Filed 12/22/11 Page 3 of 4
4

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

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties 

shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties 

have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to 

timely file objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will 

constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order 

or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated: December 22, 2011

11-0933r RR 11 12 22 on OSC Dismiss.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:11-cv-00933-SRB Document 25 Filed 12/22/11 Page 4 of 4