Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00694/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00694-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN SAHAKYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ et al..,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00694-DAD-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT 

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 21 

DAYS

(ECF Nos. 1 & 10)

Plaintiff Karen Sahakyan (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on May 20, 

2019, along with a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (ECF Nos. 

1 & 2.) Generally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are acting with deliberate indifference to 

conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff by planning to merge Special 

Needs Yard (“SNY”) (formerly known as a protective custody) inmates with General Population 

(“GP”) inmates onto a yard known as a “Non-Designated Programming Facility” (“NDPF”) Yard

at Avenal State Prison. The Court construed Plaintiff’s allegations as a facial challenge to the 

California of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) NDPF program, as a well as an asapplied challenge to that program.

Case 1:19-cv-00694-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 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

2

On October 28, 2019, the undersigned issued a screening order finding no cognizable 

claims in Plaintiff’s complaint and ordering Plaintiff to “a) File a First Amended Complaint, 

which the Court will screen in due course; or b) Notify the Court in writing that he wishes to 

stand on his Complaint and have it reviewed by a District Judge, in which case the Court will 

issue findings and recommendations to the district judge consistent with this screening order.” 

(ECF No. 10., p. 9.) The Court also warned Plaintiff that “failure to comply with this order may 

result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id.)

It has been more than two months since the issuance of the screening order and Plaintiff 

has failed to file an amended complaint or indicate that he wishes to stand on his complaint as 

drafted. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the screening order, the Court recommends that 

Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF 

No. 10.) The Court will also recommend that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to comply 

with a Court order and failure to prosecute. 

“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] 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/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 

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)). 

“‘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)). Accordingly, 

this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As to the Court’s need to manage its docket, “[t]he trial judge is in the best position to 

determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with docket management and the 

public interest.... It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to 

routine noncompliance of litigants....” Pagtalunan, 291 at 639. Plaintiff has failed to respond to 

the Court’s screening order. This failure to respond is delaying the case and interfering with 

docket management. Therefore, the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

Case 1:19-cv-00694-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 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

3

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

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. at 642 (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). However, “delay 

inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” 

id. at 643, and it is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and to prosecute this case 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. Considering Plaintiff’s 

incarceration and in forma pauperis status, monetary sanctions are of little use. And, given the 

stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. 

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor weighs against 

dismissal. Id.

After weighing the factors, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 

1. This action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to 

prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations will be 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 twenty-one 

(21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 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: January 8, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00694-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/08/20 Page 3 of 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

4

Case 1:19-cv-00694-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/08/20 Page 4 of 4