Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01603/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01603-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER WHITE, ZERITA 

WHITE, G’SHELLE WHITE AND 

DANTRELL STEVENS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1603 JAM KJN PS (TEMP)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se in this action. This matter was referred to the undersigned 

in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On October 16, 2015, this matter came before the previously assigned Magistrate Judge 

for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference.1 There was no appearance by or on behalf of 

plaintiff Dantrell Stevens. (Dkt. No. 36.) On April 12, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss 

plaintiff Dantrell Stevens from this action for a lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 38.) Plaintiff 

Dantrell Stevens failed to file a statement of opposition or non-opposition to defendants’ motion

in violation of the Local Rules. 

/////

 

1

 On November 6, 2015, this matter was reassigned from the previously assigned Magistrate 

Judge to the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 37.)

Case 2:14-cv-01603-JAM-DB Document 50 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Accordingly, on May 16, 2016, the undersigned issued an order to plaintiff Dantrell 

Stevens, ordering him to show cause in writing as to why he should not be dismissed from this 

action for a lack of prosecution and vacating the hearing of defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 

No. 42.) That order warned plaintiff that the failure to file a timely response would result in a 

recommendation that plaintiff Dantrell Stevens be dismissed from this action. The fourteen day 

period has long passed and plaintiff Dantrell Stevens has failed to respond to the court’s order.

ANALYSIS

The factors to be weighed in determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution 

are as follows: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring 

disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Hernandez v. City of 

El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 

1992); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Dismissal is a harsh penalty that 

should be imposed only in extreme circumstances. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 398; Ferdik, 963 F.2d 

at 1260.

Failure of a party to comply with the any order of the court “may be grounds for 

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or herself

without an attorney is nonetheless bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local 

Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). A party’s failure to comply with applicable 

rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local 

Rules. Id.

Here, plaintiff Dantrell Stevens has failed to appear at a hearing, failed to comply with the 

Local Rules and failed to comply with orders of this court. Despite being warned that his 

inactivity would result in a recommendation that he be dismissed from this action, plaintiff 

Dantrell Stevens has failed to respond to the court’s order in any manner. 

Plaintiff’s lack of prosecution of this case renders the imposition of monetary sanctions 

futile. Moreover, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to 

Case 2:14-cv-01603-JAM-DB Document 50 Filed 06/28/16 Page 2 of 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

3

manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants all support the imposition of the 

sanction of dismissal. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against 

dismissal. However, plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order and prosecute this action 

makes disposition on the merits an impossibility. The undersigned therefore recommends that

Dantrell Stevens be dismissed from this action due to his failure to prosecute and failure to 

comply with the court’s orders. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1) Defendants’ April 12, 2016 motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 38) be denied, without 

prejudice, as having been rendered moot; and

2) Plaintiff Dantrell Stevens be dismissed from this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 

1991).

Dated: June 28, 2016

\white1603.osc.dlop.f&rs.docx

Case 2:14-cv-01603-JAM-DB Document 50 Filed 06/28/16 Page 3 of 3