Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00780/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00780-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COREY WILLYARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCDANIELS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0780-EFB (TEMP)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In a December 7, 2015 order, the assigned judge, Judge Brennan, scheduled a settlement 

conference in this case for February 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before the 

undersigned. (ECF No. 18.) The order specifically cautioned that the “failure of any counsel, 

party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in person may result in the imposition of 

sanctions.” (Id.)

At the February 23, 2016 settlement conference, attorney Gary Brickwood appeared on 

behalf of defendants, along with assistant county counsel Jim Ross. Both of defendants’ 

representatives traveled over 150 miles from Redding to Sacramento for the settlement 

conference. However, even though the court trailed the start of the settlement conference by 30 

minutes, plaintiff, who proceeds without counsel, failed to appear.

////

Case 2:14-cv-00780-DB Document 22 Filed 03/10/16 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

Consequently, on February 25, 2016, the court issued an order to show cause. (ECF No. 

21.) In that order, the court acknowledged that the December 7, 2015 order scheduling the 

settlement conference was returned to the court as undeliverable. Nevertheless, the court noted 

that it was also informed that one of the court’s administrators had obtained plaintiff’s new 

contact information through plaintiff’s probation officer, and was ultimately able to speak to 

plaintiff and notify him regarding the date and time of the settlement conference. Indeed, that 

communication apparently prompted plaintiff to file a notice of change of address on February 

10, 2016. (ECF No. 19.) At the February 23, 2016 settlement conference, defendants’ counsel 

also advised the court that he had sent an additional notice of the settlement conference to 

plaintiff’s new address, once the notice of change of address was filed. As such, it appeared that 

plaintiff was well aware of the settlement conference, but nonetheless failed to appear without 

providing any notice to defendants’ counsel or the court. Thus, the court directed plaintiff to 

show cause, within seven (7) days, why he should not be required to pay $250.00 in sanctions 

based on his failure to appear at the court-ordered settlement conference. The court specifically 

cautioned plaintiff that failure to respond to the order by the required deadline may result in 

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

Although the applicable deadline has now passed, plaintiff failed to respond to the court’s 

order to show cause. Therefore, the court recommends dismissal at this juncture. 

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 v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). 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). The Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that “[t]hese factors are not a series of conditions precedent 

before the judge can do anything, but a way for a district judge to think about what to do.” In re 

Case 2:14-cv-00780-DB Document 22 Filed 03/10/16 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

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).

Here, the first two factors strongly weigh in favor of dismissal, because plaintiff’s failure 

to appear at a court-ordered settlement conference and comply with court orders have delayed

resolution of the action and impacted an already-congested court docket. The third factor also 

favors dismissal, because defendants have already been prejudiced, at a minimum, by plaintiff’s 

failure to appear at a settlement conference to which they traveled over 150 miles. With respect 

to the fifth factor, the court first attempted lesser sanctions by issuing an order to show cause and 

cautioning plaintiff that the case may be dismissed if he failed to comply with court orders. 

However, plaintiff ultimately ignored that order. Finally, as to the fourth factor addressing the 

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, it is plaintiff’s own actions that preclude a 

resolution on the merits here. In any event, the fourth factor is clearly outweighed by the other 

factors.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the assigned judge, Judge Brennan.

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 the 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).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: March 10, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-00780-DB Document 22 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 3