Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01488/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01488-4/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY LEON CLOWERS, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MARGARET MIMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01488-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY COURT ORDERS

(Docs. 2, 13.) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN TWENTY 

(20) DAYS

On September 24, 2014, and November 10, 2014, the Court issued orders requiring 

Plaintiff to complete and return the Court’s form indicating consent or decline of Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), within thirty days. (Docs. 2, 13.) The most recent 

thirty day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not submitted the Court’s form.

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives 

set forth in its order, Athe 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)).

Case 1:14-cv-01488-AWI-GSA Document 15 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 3
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

A>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 September 24, 2014. 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 resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by 

responding to court orders. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently 

increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it 

is Plaintiff's failure to submit the Court’s form 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 based 

on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court=s orders of September 24, 2014, and November 10, 2014. 

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 twenty (20) 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 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 

Case 1:14-cv-01488-AWI-GSA Document 15 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 3
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

__ F.3d __, __, No. 11-17911, 2014 WL 6435497, at *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter 

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01488-AWI-GSA Document 15 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 3