Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00887/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00887-2/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

Issac Joseph Ramos,

Plaintiff

-vsArizona Department of Corrections, 

et al.,

Defendants.

CV-13-0887-PHX-ROS (JFM)

Report and Recommendation

Re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute

In the Order filed October 16, 2014 (Doc. 24), the Court observed that the 

parties’ Rule 26(f) Report (Doc. 23) reported that Plaintiff had failed to serve his initial 

disclosures. Those disclosures were due by September 29, 2014. (See Order 8/20/14, 

Doc. 19.) Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either: (1) serve his initial 

disclosure statement and file a notice of service; or (2) file a response to this Order 

showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute as a result 

of Plaintiff’s failure to make disclosures as ordered. (Order 10/16/14, Doc. 24.) To date, 

Plaintiff has neither filed a notice of service, nor responded to the order to show cause.

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust 

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Rule 41(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or 

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action." 

In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court 

recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua 

sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 41(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in 

appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute 

even without notice or hearing. Id. at 633.

Case 2:13-cv-00887-ROS-JFM Document 26 Filed 11/13/14 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

In determining whether Plaintiff's failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the 

case, the Court must weigh the following five 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 the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). "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).

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

failure to serve his initial disclosures, compounded by his failure to respond to the Order 

to Show Cause, precludes this case from progressing. This leaves Defendants to engage 

in the kinds of expansive discovery which the disclosure rule was intended to avoid, in 

an effort to defend against Plaintiff’s claims, with the associated delays, burdens, and 

expense. 

The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. 

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

available. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause which indicated the 

possibility of dismissal shows that less drastic sanctions would be similarly ignored. 

Moreover, the application of most of the normal sanctions for failure to make disclosures 

(e.g. preclusion of evidence, resolution of issues, etc.) would have the effect of a 

dismissal, given the complete failure to make disclosures. Given Plaintiff’s incarcerated 

and in forma pauperis status (see Order 7/25/13, Doc. 7), an award of expenses would be 

all but futile.

The undersigned 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 Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily 

Case 2:13-cv-00887-ROS-JFM Document 26 Filed 11/13/14 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

harsh. Therefore, the Complaint and this action should be dismissed without prejudice 

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule 41, the First 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) and this case 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: November 13, 2014

13-0887o Order 14 11 13 re RR Dismiss FTP Init Disclosures.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-00887-ROS-JFM Document 26 Filed 11/13/14 Page 3 of 3