Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02175/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02175-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORRAINE F. GAINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES G. ROCHE, SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

Defendant.

CIV. S-03-2175 DFL PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

—NFN—

Plaintiff seeks a copy of this court’s December 22, 2004,

order and additional time within which to serve process upon

defendant. 

Plaintiff’s request is frivolous and should be denied. 

Plaintiff has repeatedly delayed consideration of his claims. 

On October 16, 2003, plaintiff tendered the filing fee by her

personal check and filed her complaint; she was informed by the

court to complete service of process upon defendant within 120

Case 2:03-cv-02175-DFL-PAN Document 14 Filed 04/18/05 Page 1 of 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

1 Plaintiff stated in full in her December 2004 letter:

Pursuant to an order filed November 15, 2004, I am requesting to

continue proceedings in my case and extend the time for service

for an appropriate period. My medical condition had deteriorated

and I was under the care of multiple Physicians’ [sic]. The

method of treatment resulted in surgery for removal of the gall

bladder. I am now capable of continuing this case.

2 My March 7, 2005, order stated in full:

On December 22, 2004, plaintiff was granted an additional 20 days

to serve her complaint upon defendants and file proof of such

service. That time has passed and plaintiff has not shown that

2

days, or by February 15, 2004. Plaintiff’s check was returned

for insufficient funds; the Clerk of Court informed plaintiff

October 29, 2003, that she had ten days to pay the original $150

filing fee and a $35 “returned check processing fee.” Plaintiff

failed to respond until this court, on May 6, 2004, informed

plaintiff that failure to submit payment within eleven days would

result in a recommendation her action be dismissed. On May 17,

the Clerk of Court accepted plaintiff’s payment of $150. 

On November 15, 2004, I directed plaintiff to show cause

why her action should not be dismissed for failure to serve

process upon defendant. On December 6, plaintiff wrote to the

court requesting her deadline be extended because of past medical

problems recently resolved.1 By order filed December 22, the

court found good cause for the previous delay discharged the

November 15 order to show cause, and directed plaintiff serve

process within 20 days. On March 7, I reiterated the terms of my

December 22 order and directed plaintiff to show cause why this

action should not be dismissed for disobedience of the order.2

Case 2:03-cv-02175-DFL-PAN Document 14 Filed 04/18/05 Page 2 of 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

she has served process upon defendant or otherwise responded to

the court’s order. Within 11 days from service of this order,

plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not

be dismissed.

3

On March 28, the last day to file a timely response, plaintiff

wrote requesting a copy of my December 22 order and additional

time within which to serve process.

For the reasons set forth below, I recommend denial of

plaintiff’s requests and dismissal of this action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides, “If service of the summons

and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after

the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own

initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the

action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that

service be effected within a specific time; provided that if the

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall

extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”

More than two and one half years have passed since

plaintiff commenced this action and still plaintiff has failed to

serve process upon the only named defendant. While this court

found good cause for plaintiff’s delay November through December

2004, plaintiff has failed to provide any explanation for her

overall delay. Given the clarity of this court’s November 15,

2004, and March 7, 2005, orders, threatening dismissal should

plaintiff fail to complete the task of serving process, request

for a copy of this court’s December 22, 2004, order is but an

artifice to garner more time. Plaintiff has failed to

Case 2:03-cv-02175-DFL-PAN Document 14 Filed 04/18/05 Page 3 of 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

3 In addition to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) allows

dismissal of an action for “failure of the plaintiff to . . . comply with

these rules or any order of court.” The local rules provide that “Any

individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the

Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules. 

Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default,

or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.” E. D. Cal. L. R. 83-

183. See also, E. D. Cal. Local Rule 11-110 (“Failure 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”).

4

demonstrate good cause.3

The court recognizes that dismissal is a harsh penalty

that should be imposed only in extreme circumstances. See Ferdik

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining

whether to dismiss a case, district courts must weigh five

factors: “(1) the public 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.” Malone v. U. S. Postal

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Dismissal is

appropriate when 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). 

The first and second Malone factors–public interest in

the expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to

manage its docket-weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. 

Dismissal is also strongly warranted under the third Malone

factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant. See Henderson v.

Case 2:03-cv-02175-DFL-PAN Document 14 Filed 04/18/05 Page 4 of 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

5

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Unreasonable delay

creates a presumption of injury to the defense”). 

The fourth and fifth Malone factors–the public policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits and the

availability of less drastic sanctions–weigh generally in favor

of plaintiff but do not outweigh the factors supporting

dismissal. Accordingly, I recommend plaintiff’s action be

dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable David F. Levi, the United States District Judge

assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The 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: April 18, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02175-DFL-PAN Document 14 Filed 04/18/05 Page 5 of 5