Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05680/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05680-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUD ROSSMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAY LETTEER,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05680-MEJ 

ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO 

REASSIGN CASE

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

INTRODUCTION

On December 10, 2015, Plaintiff Brud Rossmann filed the above-captioned case, as well as 

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. No. 1. As the Application contained 

discrepancies, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a declaration by December 30, 2015, explaining: 

(1) how he pays his monthly expenses, including the amount received for any source of income; 

(2) whether he is married and, if so, his spouse’s monthly salary; (3) whether he has a bank 

account and, if so, the present balance; and (4) whether the complaint raises claims that have been

presented in other lawsuits. Dkt. No. 5. Plaintiff failed to respond. Accordingly, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to show cause by January 19, 2016, why this case should not be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Dkt. No. 6. The Court provided 

notice to Plaintiff that it may dismiss the case if he failed to respond by the deadline. As of the 

date of this Order, Plaintiff failed to respond to either the request for clarification or the Order to 

Show Cause. Based on this procedural history, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this case 

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

Case 3:15-cv-05680-JD Document 8 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 41(b), “the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Oliva v. 

Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273-74 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to 

meet court deadline). “[T]he district court must weigh the following factors in determining 

whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is warranted: ‘(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.’” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Henderson factors “are ‘not a 

series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything,’ but a ‘way for a district judge to 

think about what to do.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig. (In re PPA), 460 

F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 

1057 (9th Cir. 1998)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . 

or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 

F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998).

DISCUSSION

The first two Henderson factors strongly support dismissal. First, “the public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Second, the Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of 

dismissal. Plaintiff delayed adjudication of the claims in this case by failing to respond to the 

Court’s request for clarification and show cause order. Non-compliance with procedural rules and 

the Court’s orders wastes “valuable time that [the Court] could have devoted to other . . . criminal 

and civil cases on its docket.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261.

As for the third Henderson factor, the mere pendency of a lawsuit cannot constitute 

sufficient prejudice to require dismissal. Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. However, “prejudice . . . may . 

. . consist of costs or burdens of litigation.” In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228. Moreover, “a 

presumption of prejudice arises from a plaintiff’s unexplained failure to prosecute.” Laurino v. 

Case 3:15-cv-05680-JD Document 8 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Syringa Gen. Hosp., 279 F.3d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 2002). A plaintiff has the burden of 

demonstrating a non-frivolous reason for failing to meet a court deadline. Id.; see also Yourish, 

191 F.3d at 991. Here, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s request for clarification and Order 

to Show Cause. Therefore, the Court concludes the third Henderson factor also supports

dismissal.

The fourth Henderson factor, that public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits,

normally weighs strongly against dismissal. See, e.g., Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399. “At the same 

time, a case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed by a party’s failure to comply with deadlines . . 

. cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits.” In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228. The Ninth 

Circuit has “recognized that this factor ‘lends little support’ to a party whose responsibility it is to 

move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 

direction.” Id. (quoting In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 433 (9th Cir. 1996)). Thus, if the 

fourth Henderson factor weighs against dismissal here, it does so weakly. 

Finally, the Court has already attempted less drastic sanctions, without success, and 

therefore determines that trying them again would be inadequate or inappropriate. “Though there 

are a wide variety of sanctions short of dismissal available, the district court need not exhaust 

them all before finally dismissing a case.” Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 

(9th Cir. 1981). Here, the Court already attempted the lesser sanction of issuing an Order to Show 

Cause and giving Plaintiff an opportunity to explain the failure to respond to the request for 

clarification. As Plaintiff failed to respond, another order requiring Plaintiff to respond is likely to 

be futile. See, e.g., Gleason v. World Sav. Bank, FSB, 2013 WL 3927799, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 

26, 2013) (finding dismissal under Rule 41(b) appropriate where the court previously attempted 

the lesser sanction of issuing an Order to Show Cause and giving the plaintiff an additional 

opportunity to re-plead). Further, the Order to Show Cause warned Plaintiff of the risk of 

dismissal; thus Plaintiff cannot maintain the Court failed in its “obligation to warn the plaintiff that 

dismissal is imminent.” Oliva, 958 F.2d at 274. Accordingly, the Court finds the fifth factor also 

weighs in favor of dismissal. 

Case 3:15-cv-05680-JD Document 8 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court finds at least four of the five Henderson factors 

weigh in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s request for clarification and

order to show cause. Thus, Plaintiff failed to prosecute this case and dismissal is appropriate. 

However, a less drastic alternative is to dismiss without prejudice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 

Dismissal will minimize prejudice to Defendant, but dismissing the case without prejudice will 

preserve the ability of Plaintiff to seek relief. Thus, “[i]n an abundance—perhaps 

overabundance—of caution,” the Court finds dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. Faulkner 

v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir. 2013) (remanding to the district court in 

order to consider whether dismissal should have been without prejudice). 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff did not yet consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, the 

Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to a district court judge. The 

undersigned RECOMMENDS the newly-assigned judge DISMISS this case WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s deadlines and orders.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to 

this Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: January 22, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05680-JD Document 8 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUD ROSSMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAY LETTEER,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05680-MEJ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 22, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Brud Rossmann

C/O Sawtooth Capital LLC

Ashton San Francisco

301 Executive Park Boulevard

San Francisco, CA 94134 

Dated: January 22, 2016

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By: ___________________________ 

Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES

Case 3:15-cv-05680-JD Document 8 Filed 01/22/16 Page 5 of 5