Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00102/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00102-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Fu ~":"Iil'~ ~ ~r= ~~:: t~-{fJ 

~~~l L_:~_~_.~ __ ---1 

CLEflK us DISI RICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DIWT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY ~ DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT MARK BROWN II, Inmate 

Number 11181259, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WILLIAM GORE, Sheriff of San Diego 

County, et aI., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 14-cv-l02 BAS (KSC) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE: 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Doc. Nos. 48; 50; 55 

18 Plaintiff Robert Mark Brown II, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

19 pauperis, filed this civil rights action under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. 

20 Before the Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint for Failure 

21 to Prosecute [Doc. No. 48], plaintiffs Motion to Re-Open Discovery [Doc. No. 50], and 

22 plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions. [Doc. No. 55.] On May 13, 2016, this Court issued a 

23 Notice and Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed under Rule 11 of 

24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for plaintiffs assertions concerning the alleged "Mr. 

25 Worthington." [Doc. No. 66.] 

26 Plaintiffs deadline to respond to the Show Cause Order was May 27, 2016. Plaintiff 

27 requested a 60-90 day extension to file his response, which this Court granted in part and 

28 denied in part on June 10,2016. [Doc. No. 69.] Plaintiff was given until June 27, 2016 to 

14-cv-102 BAS (KSC) 

Case 3:14-cv-00102-BAS-KSC Document 70 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 9
1 file his response and was expressly warned that the June 27, 2016 date would not be 

2 continued absent "extraordinary good cause arising from compelling, unforeseen 

3 circumstances." Id at p. 2 (emphasis in the original). Additionally, in the May 13,2016 

4 Order to Show Cause, the Court warned plaintiff that the failure to provide a timely and 

5 complete response to the Order to Show Cause might result in a dismissal of his case. [Doc. 

6 No. 66, at p. 9.] Plaintifffailed to provide a response to the Order to Show Cause by June 

7 27, 2016. Based on the moving papers, and for the reasons outlined below, this Court 

8 RECOMMENDS that defendants' Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED [Doc. No. 48] and 

9 that plaintiff's Motion to Re-Open Discovery be DENIED [Doc. No. 50.] Additionally, 

10 plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED as moot without prejudice. [Doc. No. 55.] 

11 I. Background 

12 On October 27,2014 this Court issued a Scheduling Order for all pretrial dates in 

13 the case. [Doc. No. 33.] Twenty one days before the March 27, 2015 discovery cutoff, 

14 plaintiff filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline until July 27, 2015. [Doc. No. 40, 

15 at p. 1.] Therein, plaintiff sought a continuance of the deadline because of alleged medical 

16 problems with his vision and because of his pending release from incarceration on April 

17 13, 2015. Id. Plaintiff asserted that he would "be better able to litigate from home with 

18 access to the internet and law books .... " Id. Finding good cause, this Court granted 

19 plaintiff's request for a continuance and reset the pretrial Scheduling Order to conform 

20 with a July 27, 2015 fact discovery cut-off. [Doc. No. 34.] In light of plaintiff's release 

21 from confinement, the Court changed the Mandatory Settlement Conference ("MSC") 

22 from telephonic to in person. Id. at 3. On November 19,2015 defendants contacted the 

23 Chambers ofthe assigned Magistrate Judge to inform the Court that plaintiff had returned 

24 to confinement. Consequently, the Court revised the December 9, 2015 Mandatory 

25 Settlement Conference from in person to telephonic, however the December 2, 2015 

26 deadline to file the confidential settlement briefs remained unchanged [Doc. No. 43, at p. 

27 3.] Defendants submitted a timely confidential brief with the Court on December 2,2015, 

28 however no brief was received from plaintiff. 

2 

14-cv-102 BAS (KSC) 

Case 3:14-cv-00102-BAS-KSC Document 70 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 9
1 At the telephonic Mandatory Settlement Conference on December 9,2016, plaintiff 

2 appeared pro se and Mr_ Ronald Lenert appeared on behalf of defendants. Defendants 

3 asserted that plaintiff did not leave a forwarding address upon his release on April 13, 2015, 

4 and that as a result they were unable to get in contact with him from the date of his release 

5 on April 13, 2015 until he was re-incarcerated on October 1,2015. Because of this, and the 

6 plaintiffs failure to contact defense counsel during the time period when he was not 

7 incarcerated, the plaintiff conducted no formal discovery in accordance with this Court's 

8 Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 33], and the defense was effectively precluded from 

9 conducting any discovery. 

10 On December 24,2015, defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

11 Prosecution. [Doc. No. 48.] Plaintiff timely filed his Motion to Re-Open Discovery on 

12 January 7, 2015. [Doc. No. 50.] Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to plaintiffs 

13 Motion to Re-Open Discovery on January 20, 2016. Plaintiff filed a Response in 

14 Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on April 4, 2016. 

15 II. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution 

16 Once a case is commenced it remains on the docket until the case is either 

17 adjudicated or dismissed. "If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules 

18 or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it." 

19 Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Dismissal is a severe sanction that should only be imposed in extreme 

20 circumstances. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 

21 22, 1992). This Court must consider five factors in assessing whether involuntary dismissal 

22 ofplaintiffs case is an appropriate sanction. !d. at 1260-1261. These factors include: "(1) 

23 the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage 

24 its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 

25 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability ofless drastic alternatives." Id. 

26 A district court may dismiss a case when four factors support dismissal or where at least 

27 three factors strongly support dismissal. See Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 

28 990 (9th Cir. 1999). 

3 

14-cv-102 BAS (KSC) 

Case 3:14-cv-00102-BAS-KSC Document 70 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 9
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

1. The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court's need 

to manage the docket. 

The first two factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. The Ninth Circuit has 

noted that the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 

dismissal. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999); see In re 

6 PPA Products Liability Litig., 460 F.3d at 1234 ("dismissal serves the public interest in 

7 expeditious resolution of litigation as well as the court's need to manage the docket when 

8 a plaintiffs noncompliance has caused the action to come to a halt, thereby allowing the 

9 plaintiff, rather than the court, to control the pace ofthe docket."). "Notwithstanding this 

1 0 ruling, a district court must find 'unreasonable delay' prior to dismissing a particular case 

11 for lack of prosecution." Wade v. Ratella, 407 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1207 (S.D. Cal. 2005) 

12 (quoting In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447,1451 (9th Cir.1994)). 

13 The Court finds unreasonable delay directly caused by the inactivity of plaintiff. This 

14 case has been on the Court's docket since the original Complaint was filed on January 15, 

15 2014. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff's failure to participate in the case for approximately eight 

16 months caused the case to grind to a halt during the time period the parties were to be 

17 actively engaging in discovery. See [Doc. No. 48-1, at p. 6] (indicating that defendants 

18 were unable to gather any substantive discovery before plaintiff stopped prosecuting his 

19 case). These actions allowed plaintiff, and not the Court, to control the Court's docket.l 

20 Accordingly the first and second factor weigh strongly in support of dismissal. 

21 2. Risk of prejudice to defendants. 

22 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, weighs in favor of dismissal. A 

23 

24 

25 The Court takes judicial notice, sua sponte, that the Southern District of California had 8,086 cases 

filed in the 12 months reporting period ending March 31, 2016. Federal Court Management Statistics, 

26 http://www. uscourts. gov I statistics-reports/federal-court -management -statistics-march-20 16 (last visited 

on July 19, 2016).The District's average time from filing to trial in a civil case was 30 months during that 

27 same period. The right of access to the judicial system necessarily includes the prompt resolution of a 

28 dispute. Actions by a litigant that cause unreasonable delay frustrate this goal and only underscore the old 

adage, justice delayed is justice denied. 

4 

14-cv-102 BAS (KSC) 

Case 3:14-cv-00102-BAS-KSC Document 70 Filed 07/20/16 Page 4 of 9
1 rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendant arises from an unreasonable delay. 

2 Anderson v. Air W, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). This presumption is a 

3 recognition of the inevitable friction present in every case that is compounded by the 

4 passage of time. Memories fade, potential witnesses and evidence become harder to find, 

5 and resources are spent holding a case in limbo, all because of a plaintiff s lack of diligence. 

6 See Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942,955 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, defendants assert 

7 actual prejudice caused by plaintiffs lack of prosecution. [Doc. No. 48-1, at p. 6] 

8 ("Plaintiffs failure to prosecute has prejudiced Defendants by depriving them the 

9 opportunity to obtain discovery and prepare their defenses.") Additionally, defendants 

10 argue that plaintiff has not presented evidence to rebut the presumption of prejudice. Id. at 

11 7. 

12 A review of the docket reveals that this case is essentially no more ready for trial 

13 than it was when the original Scheduling Order was issued on October 27, 2014. See [Doc. 

14 No. 43] (Order granting plaintiff a 4 month continuance of discovery); [Doc. No. 48-1] 

15 (asserting that defendants were unable to obtain discovery and prepare defenses before the 

16 pre-trial deadlines expired). Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to defendants' Motion to 

17 Dismiss does not present any facts to rebut the presumption of prejudice and instead 

18 focuses exclusively on the unsupported "Mr. Worthington" excuse.2 [Doc. No. 60.] 

19 Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, and nevertheless, 

20 defendants have demonstrated actual prejudice caused by plaintiff s lack of prosecution. 

21 Accordingly, the third factors supports dismissal. 

22 3. The public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 

23 Public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits. Accordingly, the fourth 

24 factors weighs strongly against dismissal. "This policy favoring resolution on the merits 

25 'is particularly important in civil rights cases.'" Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 

26 

27 

28 

2 Plaintiff alleges that the 8 month delay was caused by his reliance on his allegedly retained 

attorney, "Mr. Worthington." A full recitation of his unusual assertions can be found in [Doc. Nos. 50; 

60.] 

5 

14-cv-102 BAS (KSC) 

Case 3:14-cv-00102-BAS-KSC Document 70 Filed 07/20/16 Page 5 of 9
1 393,399 (9th Cir_ 1998) (quoting Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.l987)). 

2 4. The availability of less drastic alternatives. 

3 The Court possesses a wide range of tools to achieve the orderly and expeditious 

4 disposition of cases, and ensure compliance with Court orders. These sanctions include but 

5 are not limited to a formal reprimand, imposition of fees, or terminating sanctions. Estrada 

6 v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050,1055-56 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on denial ofreh'g 

7 and reh'g en banc (May 24, 2001). In considering the wide panoply of sanctions available, 

8 the Court finds that lesser sanctions would not be appropriate or effective in this case. 

9 First, plaintiff is a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis. As such, monetary 

10 sanctions would be futile given his documented indigence. [Doc. Nos. 2; 9.] Indeed other 

11 Courts have found monetary sanctions to be equally inappropriate for pro se litigants 

12 proceeding in forma pauperis. Sanchez v. Rodriguez, 298 F.R.D. 460, 466 (C.D_ Cal. 

13 2014); Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252, 262-63 (3d Cir.2008) ("where a plaintiff ... is 

14 proceeding in forma pauperis, we have upheld the District Court's conclusion that no 

15 alternative sanctions existed because monetary sanctions, including attorney's fees, 'would 

16 not be an effective alternative"') (quoting Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184, 191 (3d 

17 Cir.2002)); Brown v. Oil States Skagit Smatco, 664 FJd 71, 78 (5th Cir. 2011) ("[w]e 

18 recognize that the majority of the lesser sanctions available to a district court are unlikely 

19 to create the same incentive to comply in a litigant who proceeds in forma pauperis, and is 

20 therefore essentially judgment proof, than in the average litigant who pays her own way in 

21 court" (internal quotation and citation omitted.) 

22 Second, in considering the variety of remaining sanctions, this Court must also take 

23 into account the May 13, 2016 Order to Show Cause ("OSC") and plaintiff's failure to 

24 provide a timely response. The issuance of the OSC was necessitated by plaintiff's fanciful 

25 story regarding "Mr. Worthington," the lawyer who he allegedly retained to represent him 

26 in this case. A fuller explanation of plaintiff's conduct and his assertions regarding Mr. 

27 

28 

6 

14-cv-l02 BAS (KSC) 

Case 3:14-cv-00102-BAS-KSC Document 70 Filed 07/20/16 Page 6 of 9
1 Worthington are set forth in the May 13,2016 OSC3 [Doc_ No. 66.] In response to the 

2 unsupported and seemingly improbable assertions by plaintiff regarding his retention of 

3 counsel, the Court ordered plaintiff to either withdraw any reference in his filings to Mr. 

4 Worthington and provide a declaration explaining the true reason for the eight months of 

5 delay in prosecuting this case, or provide specific details and evidence to substantiate his 

6 claims. While the Mr. Worthington assertions are not per se impossible, they are so 

7 extremely improbable that without additional evidence, which plaintiff failed to provide, 

8 this Court concludes that they are false. Plaintiff's failure to provide a timely response to 

9 the May 13,2016 OSC, despite an express warning ofthe potential for dismissal of this 

10 action for failure to do so, adds further weight to the falsity of his assertions regarding Mr. 

11 Worthington. 

12 Plaintiff's actions demonstrate that lesser sanctions would not be appropriate or 

13 effective in this case. After dictating that eight months of inactivity elapse, plaintiff chose 

14 to provide exaggerated andlor entirely false information to the Court, which essentially laid 

15 blame on Mr. Worthington to avoid any adverse action. When provided with the 

16 opportunity to remove the false information or provide the most basic information to 

17 support his assertions, he chose silence. Further, plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to 

18 receive information from this Court and as he states, "[aside from eight months of 

19 inactivity] he has never missed a date or was late filing anything." [Doc. No. 60, at p. 2.] 

20 Accordingly, this Court finds that lesser sanctions would not be appropriate or effective in 

21 this case and this factor weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. 

22 III 

23 

24 

25 3 In the May 13, 2016 OSC, the Court noted that plaintiff had been released from confinement for 

the second time since this case was filed and again failed to keep the Court informed of his change of 

26 address. After receiving plaintiffs June 7, 2016 Motion for Enlargement of Time [Doc. No. 68], it became 

apparent that a scriveners error in correspondence from the Court to plaintiff caused the Court to 

27 erroneously conclude that plaintiff had been released from confinement a second time. The Court 

28 contacted defendants on June 8, 2015, confirming plaintiffs continued incarceration status. This 

erroneous reference however, plays no role in this Courts ultimate recommendation. 

7 

14-cv-l02 BAS (KSC) 

Case 3:14-cv-00102-BAS-KSC Document 70 Filed 07/20/16 Page 7 of 9
1 III. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions 

2 At the Mandatory Settlement Conference held on December 9, 2015, the parties 

3 discussed plaintiff's assertions regarding his lack of access to the prison law library. To 

4 address plaintiff's concerns, this Court ordered the defendants to coordinate with the 

5 appropriate prison personnel "to ensure plaintiff [had] access to the appropriate legal 

6 facilities and supplies in accordance with Bounds, Lewis, and their prodigy." [Doc. No. 47, 

7 at pp. 2-3.] On March 28, 2016, plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions for defendant's 

8 alleged failure to provide access to the required legal materials. [Doc. No. 55.] Defendants 

9 filed their Response in Opposition on April 11, 2016. [Doc. No. 63.] Plaintiff filed a Reply 

10 on May 13,2016. [Doc. No. 65.] 

11 Notwithstanding plaintiff's allegations concerning his lack of access to the prison 

12 law library, the May 13,2015 Order to Show Cause required plaintiffto take one of two 

13 actions. Plaintiff either had to file a declaration and explain the true reason for eight months 

14 of inactivity in his case, or provide the most basic information and evidence to substantiate 

15 his representations regarding "Mr. Worthington." Neither of these two options required 

16 plaintiff to conduct any legal research. Given the procedural posture of the case and the 

17 ultimate recommendation of this Court, plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED as 

18 moot without prejudice. [Doc. No. 55.] 

19 III 

20 III 

21 III 

22 III 

23 III 

24 III 

25 III 

26 III 

27 III 

28 III 

8 

14-cv-l02 BAS (KSC) 

Case 3:14-cv-00102-BAS-KSC Document 70 Filed 07/20/16 Page 8 of 9
1 IV. Conclusion 

2 This Court finds that four out of the five factors weigh in favor of dismissal and three 

3 of the factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissaL Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 

4 RECOMMENDED that the District Court issue an order (1) approving and adopting this 

5 Report and Recommendation; (2) GRANTING the defendant's Motion to Dismiss for 

6 Failure to Prosecute [Doc_ No_ 48]; and, (3) DENYING plaintiffs Motion to Re-Open 

7 Discovery [Doc_ No_ 50.] Additionally, plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions is DENIED as 

8 moot without prejudice. [Doc. No. 55.] 

9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

10 Dated: July 19, 2016 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Hon. . rawford 

United States Magistrate Judge 

9 

14-cv-l02 BAS (KSC) 

Case 3:14-cv-00102-BAS-KSC Document 70 Filed 07/20/16 Page 9 of 9