Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00136/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00136-4/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

TREMAINE OLIVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. FEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00136-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE 

DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH A COURT ORDER 

(ECF Nos. 1 & 17)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 21 

DAYS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 

DISTRICT JUDGE

Tremaine Oliver (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing 

this action on January 31, 2019. (ECF No. 1). 

On October 1, 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 wants to stand on his 

complaint, in which case the Court will issue findings and recommendations to a district judge 

consistent with this order.” (ECF No. 17, p. 14). The Court also warned Plaintiff that “failure to 

Case 1:19-cv-00136-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 01/13/20 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

comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id.)

It has been more than three 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 (ECF No. 17), the Court will 

recommend that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. 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.

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 

Case 1:19-cv-00136-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 01/13/20 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

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)).

Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge 

to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00136-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 3