Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01082/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01082-17/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

MICHAEL TENORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATHANAEL GOODGAME, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-1082 WBS CKD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Trial in this pro se prisoner civil rights action is set for April 2015. (ECF No. 78.) In 

April 2014, plaintiff was ordered to file a pretrial statement. (Id.) On July 24, 2014, after 

settlement talks failed, plaintiff requested a ninety-day extension of time to file his pretrial 

statement and motions for witness attendance. (ECF No. 86.) On September 24, 2014, following 

briefing on the location of potential inmate witnesses, plaintiff was granted an additional 60 days 

to file a pretrial statement, with the warning that “No further extensions of this deadline will be 

granted.” (ECF No. 97.) 

The sixty-day period has passed, and plaintiff has not filed a pretrial statement. Rather, he 

has filed an 85-page motion to appoint counsel, renewing his three previous requests for an 

attorney.1 (ECF No. 99.) He has also requested additional time to file a pretrial statement, stating 

 

1

Plaintiff’s first motion to appoint counsel was denied, and the denial was confirmed by the 

district court upon reconsideration. (ECF Nos. 48, 51.) Plaintiff’s second motion to appoint 

Case 2:11-cv-01082-WBS-CKD Document 104 Filed 12/08/14 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

that he will try to “put something together” within thirty days. (ECF No. 100.)

Defendants request dismissal of this action under Rules 16(f), 37(b)(2) and 41(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 101.) Plaintiff has filed a reply, citing various 

difficulties of litigating from prison and asserting that “defendants, their lawyers, and MCSP” 

have conspired to impede him. (ECF No. 103 at 5.)

Plaintiff has been informed twice that failure to timely file a pretrial statement could result 

in the sanction of dismissal. (ECF Nos. 78, 97.) Under the circumstances, the court does not 

believe that plaintiff has shown good cause for a further extension of time or made a good-faith 

attempt to comply with the September 24, 2014 order. Nor has plaintiff shown the required 

exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel.

“In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply 

with a court 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 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). Factors (1) and (2) weigh in favor of dismissal. Id.; see also Malone v. U.S. 

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-131 (9th Cir. 1987). Factor (5) weighs against dismissal.

As to factor (3), “[t]o prove prejudice, a defendant must establish that plaintiff’s actions 

impaired defendant’s ability to proceed to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision 

of the case.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642, citing Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. Here, plaintiff’s lack 

of diligence in preparing a pretrial statement – despite being given ample time to do so and 

specific advice about how to contact inmate witnesses (see ECF No. 97) – have impaired 

defendants’ ability to proceed to trial in April 2015. Thus this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 

As to factor (4), “[w]arning a plaintiff that failure to take steps towards resolution of his 

action on the merits will result in dismissal satisfies the requirement the court consider the 

alternatives[]” to dismissal. Chatman v. Johnson, No. CIV S-06-0578 MCE EFB P, 2008 WL 

 

counsel was also denied. (ECF No. 62.)

Case 2:11-cv-01082-WBS-CKD Document 104 Filed 12/08/14 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

5412212 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30 2008) (dismissing pro se prisoner’s action as sanction for 

failure to file pretrial statement) (findings and recommendations adopted by district court Feb. 17, 

2009 and affirmed on appeal July 22, 2010), citing Buss v. Western Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 1053, 

1054 (9th Cir. 1984). As to other alternative sanctions, “imposing fines or attorney fees would be 

wholly impracticable because plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and plaintiff has 

disregarded all prior warnings regarding sanctions, including the sanction of dismissal. These 

alternatives, therefore, are infeasible.” Id. For these reason, factor (4) also weighs in favor of 

dismissal. Moreover, “[t]he alternative of dismissal without prejudice is unsatisfactory because 

permitting plaintiff to file anew at his whim would only consume yet more of the court’s time that 

could be devoted to other cases on its already overburdened docket.” Id.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 99) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 100) is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Defendants’ request for dismissal (ECF No. 101) be granted; and

2. This case be dismissed with prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action.

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, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 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). 

Dated: December 8, 2014

2 / teno1082.ftp

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-01082-WBS-CKD Document 104 Filed 12/08/14 Page 3 of 3