Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00911/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00911-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dustin Wayne Herring,

Plaintiff

-vsMaricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-15-0911-PHX-DGC (JFM)

Report and Recommendation

The Court’s Scheduling Order, filed February 4, 2016 (Doc. 19), directed the 

parties to confer and to “submit to the Court their Joint Discovery Plan/Rule 26(f) 

Planning Meeting Report on or before March 21, 2016.” (Id. at 5 (emphasis in 

original).) The Order further provided that “Defendants are responsible for initiating the 

conference between the parties, and for drafting and submission of the Joint Discovery 

Plan/Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting Report.” (Id. at 7.)

On March 21, 2016, Defendants filed a unilateral plan, noting that the parties had 

conferred on February 22, 2016, a draft plan had been forwarded to Plaintiff on February 

24, 2016, and despite subsequent correspondence, Plaintiff has failed to return his 

revisions or consent to the draft plan. 

The Court directed the filing of a Joint plan, and it appeared that Plaintiff had 

failed to cooperate in the preparation of a joint plan. Rule 16(f), Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, provides for sanctions, including dismissal of an action, for failure to comply 

with the Court’s scheduling order and to participate in pretrial planning. Accordingly, 

on March 24, 2016, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 26) giving Plaintiff fourteen days 

from the filing of the order, to file a response showing cause why this case should not be 

dismissed (or other sanctions imposed) as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to participate in 

the planning process as previously ordered.

Case 2:15-cv-00911-DGC Document 28 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Plaintiff has not responded.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 allows sanctions for a party's failure to obey a 

scheduling or pretrial order. Upon such a failure by a party, the court “may make such 

orders with regard thereto as are just, and among others any of the orders provided in 

Rule 37(b)(2)(B), (C), (D).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f). The sanctions permitted under Rule 

37(b)(2)(B), (C) and (D) are an “order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support 

or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing 

designated matters in evidence,” “[a]n order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or 

staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or 

proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the 

disobedient party,” or an order of contempt.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also allows the involuntary dismissal of an 

action or a claim for “failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or 

any order of the court.” Although the text of Rule 41(b) speaks in terms of a defense 

motion for dismissal, the Rule also permits the court to sua sponte dismiss an action for 

failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962).

The standards for dismissal under Rule 16(f) and Rule 41(b) for failure to obey a 

court order “are basically the same.” Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 

Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988). Before dismissing a case under Rule 16(f) 

or Rule 41(b), “the district court must weigh several factors: the public's interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; the court's need to manage its docket; the risk of 

prejudice to the defendants; the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits; and the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 

84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir.1996). “The first two of these factors favor the imposition of 

sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal 

sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions." 

Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 2:15-cv-00911-DGC Document 28 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff's 

failure to participate in discovery planning and to respond to the Court’s order to show 

cause prevents the case from proceeding in the foreseeable future. The fourth factor, as 

always, weighs against dismissal. 

The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is 

available. “The following factors are of particular relevance in determining whether a 

district court has considered alternatives to dismissal: (1) Did the court explicitly discuss 

the feasibility of less drastic sanctions and explain why alternative sanctions would be 

inadequate? (2) Did the court implement alternative methods of sanctioning or curing the 

malfeasance before ordering dismissal? (3) Did the court warn the plaintiff of the 

possibility of dismissal before actually ordering dismissal?” Malone, 833 F.2d at 132. 

Taking those in reverse order, here the Court warned Plaintiff that “sanctions, including 

dismissal of an action” were possible. (Order 3/24/16, Doc. 26 at 1.) The Court 

attempted to cure the malfeasance by cautioning Plaintiff and directing him to explain 

his non-compliance. (Id.) 

Without Plaintiff's participation or responsiveness to the Court, most alternatives 

are bound to be futile. Plaintiff’s actions indicate his intent and willingness to abandon 

the litigation. Thus, restricting evidence, striking pleadings, or staying proceedings are 

unlikely to produce anything beyond Plaintiff’s continued silence. An order of contempt 

is unlikely to be effective. Plaintiff is already incarcerated, and is appearing in forma 

pauperis. 

The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule 

41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon 

the merits "[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies." In the 

instant case, the undersigned finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be 

unnecessarily harsh. The Complaint and this action should, therefore, be dismissed 

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:15-cv-00911-DGC Document 28 Filed 04/20/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that pursuant to Rules 16(f) and 41(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall 

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file 

objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be 

considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute 

a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated: April 19, 2016

15-0911o Order 16 04 19 re RR Dismiss FTP.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00911-DGC Document 28 Filed 04/20/16 Page 4 of 4