Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00769/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00769-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

TODD LADON JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAUREN VIGEN,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-00769-KJM-KJN PS

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On July 2, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, and provided plaintiff with 28 days to either 

file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. 

(ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to timely comply with the order may result in 

dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Id.) 

After plaintiff failed to file either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal 

by the required deadline, the court considered whether the action should be dismissed. 

Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, and the court’s desire to resolve the action on the 

merits, the court on August 13, 2019, issued an order to show cause as to why this action should 

not be dismissed. (ECF No. 10.) The court also provided plaintiff with an additional opportunity 

to file an amended complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause and his first 

amended complaint were due within 14 days of that order, i.e., by August 27, 2019. (Id.) 

Case 2:19-cv-00769-KJM-KJN Document 14 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiff was again expressly cautioned that failure to timely comply with all terms of the order 

would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b). (Id.) Plaintiff failed to respond by August 27, 2019. The court then issued findings and 

recommendations, on September 11, 2019, recommending that this action be dismissed due to 

plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s orders and his failure to prosecute this case. (ECF 

No. 11.) 

On September 18, 2019, plaintiff filed untimely objections to the court’s

recommendations, in which he argued that in light of his upcoming release from incarceration on 

September 16, 2019, he would be able to more fully address the court’s orders and file an 

amended complaint, as instructed. (ECF No. 12.) The court subsequently withdrew its findings 

and recommendations and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint by December 5, 2019. 

(ECF No. 13.) The court also ordered plaintiff to keep the court appraised of his current address, 

and instructed the Clerk of Court to serve the order on an address plaintiff included in his 

objections. (Id.) Plaintiff’s change of address was due February 3, 2020. Plaintiff has not filed 

an amended complaint, a change of address, or any other paper with the court since the court 

withdrew its recommendations. 

Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 

with these Rules or with 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.” 

Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is 

bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 

Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on 

“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria 

persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, 

judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these 

Rules.

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). A district 

court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or 

Case 2:19-cv-00769-KJM-KJN Document 14 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 5
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

fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local 

rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act 

sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground 

for dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with 

any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 

1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and 

may impose sanctions including dismissal or default). 

A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 

prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local 

rules. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. Specifically, the court must consider:

(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 alternatives.

Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal, because this case has already been 

delayed by plaintiff’s failure to take the steps necessary to move this case forward. The third 

factor also slightly favors dismissal, because, at a minimum, defendant has been deprived of an 

opportunity to be promptly notified of the lawsuit and prepare a defense. With the passage of 

time, witnesses’ memories fade and evidence becomes stale. 

Furthermore, the fifth factor, availability of less drastic alternatives, favors dismissal, 

because the court has already attempted multiple less drastic alternatives. More specifically, the 

court, cognizant of plaintiff’s pro se status, declined to initially dismiss the case, but instead 

allowed plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint. The court also clearly cautioned 

Case 2:19-cv-00769-KJM-KJN Document 14 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 5
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

plaintiff regarding the potential consequences of any continued failure to comply with the court’s 

orders. Additionally, given plaintiff’s objections to the court’s findings and recommendations, 

and his subsequent continued failure to follow the court’s orders, it appears that any further steps 

would be an exercise in futility. 

Finally, as to the fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits, that factor is outweighed by the other Ferdik factors. Indeed, it is plaintiff’s own failure to 

prosecute the case and comply with court orders that precludes a resolution on the merits.

Therefore, after carefully evaluating the Ferdik factors, the court concludes that dismissal 

is appropriate. 

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b).

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

In light of those recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,

discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of the findings and 

recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations and 

any non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any 

motions and other filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved.

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 (14) 

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.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

objections. The parties are advised that 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).

Case 2:19-cv-00769-KJM-KJN Document 14 Filed 03/06/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Finally, the Clerk of Court is instructed to serve this order to the additional address 

plaintiff included in his objections: Todd L. Johnson, 5821 Dry Creek Rd. # 20, Rio Linda, CA 

95673.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: March 5, 2020

johnson.769.F&R dismiss

Case 2:19-cv-00769-KJM-KJN Document 14 Filed 03/06/20 Page 5 of 5