Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02324/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02324-6/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

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

ANTHONY CHAVARRIA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

P. A. GREEN, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-02324-LJO-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY COURT ORDER

(Doc. 26.) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN TWENTY 

(20) DAYS

On September 9, 2014, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a response to 

Defendants' motion to dismiss of July 28, 2014, within thirty days. (Doc. 26.) The thirty day 

period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss or 

otherwise responded to the Court's order.

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 

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)).

Case 1:10-cv-02324-DAD-EPG Document 27 Filed 10/30/14 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

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 December 14, 2010. 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 

defending 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 Defendant's motion to dismiss 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, 

without prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to obey the court=s order of September 9, 2014. 

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 twenty (20) days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate 

Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

///

Case 1:10-cv-02324-DAD-EPG Document 27 Filed 10/30/14 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

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02324-DAD-EPG Document 27 Filed 10/30/14 Page 3 of 3