Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00340/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00340-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKHAEL ISSA KAMAR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

KEITH T. KROLCZYK, QUAN )

VUONG, JOHN UNDERWOOD, )

SHELLEY ANSELMI, SCOTT )

LAMBERT, JOHN DEPASQUALE, )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

COUNTY OF KERN, and DOES )

1 through 20 inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 07 -CV- 0340 AWI TAG

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS

TO DEFENDANTS SHELLEY

ANSELMI AND SCOTT A.

LAMBERT

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK

OF THE COURT TO CLOSE THIS

ACTION

BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2007, Plaintiff Kamar filed a complaint against agents employed by the

Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (“Bivens”) and against

officers employed by the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, along with the County of Kern,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleged Defendants searched Plaintiff’s business

and seized his property in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

On July 22, 2008, the court dismissed all Federal Defendants from this action without

leave to amend. The court also dismissed Defendants Shelley Anselmi, Scott A. Lambert, and

Case 1:07-cv-00340-AWI-TAG Document 58 Filed 09/26/08 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

27

28 2

the County of Kern (“State Defendants”) with leave to amend the complaint to allege that State

Defendants are “peace officers” within the meaning of Section 945.3. The court’s July 22, 2008

order warned that failure to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal of this action.

On August 21, 2008, pursuant to Plaintiff’s and Defendant County of Kern’s stipulation,

the court dismissed Defendant County of Kern.

Plaintiffs have not filed any amended complaint against Defendants Shelley Anselmi and

Scott A. Lambert. 

DISCUSSION

A review of the docket reveals that this action remains pending as to Defendants Shelley

Anselmi and Scott A. Lambert. The court’s order dismissing all Federal Defendants without

leave to amend resolved this action as to all Federal Defendants. The court’s order dismissing

the Defendant County of Kern resolved this action as to Defendant County of Kern. However,

the court gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint as to Defendants Shelley Anselmi and

Scott A. Lambert, and the parties have not stipulated to Defendants Shelley Anselmi’s and Scott

A. Lambert’s dismissal. Thus, this action remains pending as to Defendants Shelley Anselmi

and Scott A. Lambert. 

While this action remains pending as to Defendants Shelley Anselmi and Scott A.

Lambert, there is no complaint on file against Defendants Shelley Anselmi and Scott A. Lambert

because the first amended complaint was dismissed and Plaintiff failed to file an amended

complaint as to Defendants Shelley Anselmi and Scott A. Lambert as required by the court’s July

22, 2008 order. A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to

prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

(9 Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution the court th

must consider several factors, including: (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

Case 1:07-cv-00340-AWI-TAG Document 58 Filed 09/26/08 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

27

28 3

drastic alternatives. In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the

directives set forth in its 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 (9 Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992)); th th

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9 Cir. 1995). “These factors are ‘not a series of conditions th

precedent before the judge can do anything,’ but a ‘way for a district judge to think about what to

do.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th

Cir. 2006); (quoting Valley Eng'rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng'g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9 Cir. 1998). th

The court finds that dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the

court’s July 22, 2008 order is appropriate. The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. “The

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291

F.3d at 642; Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9 Cir. 1999). This action has th

been pending for a year and a half. Plaintiff has failed to keep an operative pleading on file. 

The court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases in which a plaintiff has failed to file an

amended complaint and litigate his case. The public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of

litigation weighs heavily in favor of dismissal of such cases so that the court’s limited resources

may be spent on cases in which the litigant is actually proceeding. Thus, both the first and

second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; Yourish 191 F.3d at 991. 

However, delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence

will become stale. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. The remaining Defendants have indicated a

desire to have this action dismissed based on their filing of a motion to dismiss. The court finds

Case 1:07-cv-00340-AWI-TAG Document 58 Filed 09/26/08 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

27

28 4

that any risk of prejudice to Defendants weighs in favor of dismissal. 

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little

available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the

court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scare resources. Factors that indicate whether

a district court has considered alternatives include: (1) Discussing of the feasibility of less drastic

sanctions and explanation why alternative sanctions would be inadequate (2) Implementing

alternative methods of sanctioning before ordering dismissal (3) Warning to the plaintiff of the

possibility of dismissal before actually ordering dismissal. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228-29.

 “Warning that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the

‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1229; Estrada v. Speno &

Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9 Cir. 2001). Here, the court’s July 22, 2008 order stated that th

failure to file an amended complaint will result in sanctions, including this action’s dismissal.

The availability of less drastic sanctions has been considered, but given that Plaintiff did not

comply with the court’s July 22, 2008 order and has failed to keep an operative complaint on file,

the court has no other effective sanction but to close the case. 

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor normally

weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. “At the same time, a case that is stalled

or unreasonably delayed by a party's failure to file an amended complaint or comply with

deadlines cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits. Thus, [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.”

In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228. As such, the court finds this factor has little weight in actions

where the Plaintiff has been unable or unwilling to proceed.

The court finds dismissal for failure to comply with the court’s order to file an amended

complaint appropriate.

 

Case 1:07-cv-00340-AWI-TAG Document 58 Filed 09/26/08 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

27

28 5

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. This action is DISMISSED as to Defendants Shelley Anselmi and Scott A.

Lambert for Plaintiff’s failure to filed an amended complaint;

2. As this dismissal resolves of this action as to all remaining Defendants,

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00340-AWI-TAG Document 58 Filed 09/26/08 Page 5 of 5