Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01109/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01109-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
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

LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PALYGA PAVEL,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-01109-JAM-CKD PS

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On July 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, and provided plaintiff with 30 days to file a 

first amended complaint. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to timely comply with 

the order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.)

Plaintiff ultimately failed to file an amended complaint as ordered. Nor did plaintiff file a 

notice of voluntary dismissal. As such, the court considered whether the action should be 

dismissed. However, the court first attempted lesser sanctions in light of plaintiff’s pro se status 

and the court’s desire to resolve the action on the merits. Accordingly, on January 24, 2020, the 

court ordered plaintiff, within 14 days, to: (1) show cause in writing why the action should not be 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on her failure to 

comply with the court’s orders and failure to prosecute the case; and (2) file a first amended 

complaint in compliance with the court’s July 11, 2019 order. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was 

Case 2:19-cv-01109-JAM-CKD Document 5 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 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

2

expressly cautioned that failure to timely comply with the court’s order would result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). (Id.)

Although the applicable deadline has now passed, and despite the court’s clear 

admonitions, plaintiff again entirely failed to respond to the court’s order. Therefore, at this 

juncture, the court has little choice but to recommend dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute the 

action.

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) (stating that “[p]ro 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 

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 Pres. 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) (stating that “[f]ailure 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) (explaining that, 

Case 2:19-cv-01109-JAM-CKD Document 5 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 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

3

“[p]ursuant 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 “[d]istrict courts have inherent power to 

control their dockets” and may impose sanctions that include dismissal). 

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 Palyga Pavel 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 less drastic alternatives. More specifically, the court, 

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

order to show cause. (See ECF No. 4.) The court also clearly cautioned plaintiff regarding the 

potential consequences of any continued failure to comply with the court’s orders. (Id.) 

Additionally, given plaintiff’s initial request to proceed in forma pauperis and her complete 

failure to respond to the court’s orders, the court is not convinced that plaintiff could or would 

pay any monetary sanctions if they were ordered.

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.

////

Case 2:19-cv-01109-JAM-CKD Document 5 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 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

4

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

is appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This 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 United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” 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).

In light of these 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.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED AND ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020

15 iegorova1109.f&R.dismiss

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01109-JAM-CKD Document 5 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 4