Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00996/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00996-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY L. SHORT, 

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

JOHN SANZBERRO, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:09-cv-00996-OWW-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER

(Doc. 19.) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS

On February 10, 2010, the court issued an order for plaintiff to complete and return service

documents to initiate service of process in this action, within thirty days. (Doc. 19.) More than sixty

days have now expired, and plaintiff has not submitted any service documents 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, “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 availabilityof less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policyfavoring

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)), and here, the action has

been pending since June 2009 . 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

1

Case 1:09-cv-00996-OWW -GBC Document 20 Filed 04/21/10 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

resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by submitting the documents required to initiate

service of process in his case. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh 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. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently increases the risk

that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it is Plaintiff's failure to

return service documents to the court, in response to the Court's order, 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 February 10, 2010. 

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 thirty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 

Such a 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

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: April 21, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

2

Case 1:09-cv-00996-OWW -GBC Document 20 Filed 04/21/10 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

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00996-OWW -GBC Document 20 Filed 04/21/10 Page 3 of 3