Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02558/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02558-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

JOHN REGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02558-TSH 

REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT 

WITH REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 13, 2019, Plaintiff John Regan filed a Complaint against the “California State 

Government,” “California Courts,” and “Does 1 to 100,000,000,” alleging the complaint relates to 

his father’s probate and that “[d]etails to be amended, provided later.” ECF No. 1. Regan also 

filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. On May 15, 2019, the Court 

granted Regan’s in forma pauperis application but found his complaint failed to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 4. The Court ordered 

Regan to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the screening order 

by June 19, 2019, warning him that it would recommend dismissal if he failed to comply. 

As Regan failed to file an amended complaint, the Court ordered him to show cause by 

July 5, 2019, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply 

with court deadlines. ECF No. 5. The Court provided Regan notice that it may dismiss the case if 

he failed to respond by the deadline. As of today, Regan has failed to either file an amended 

complaint or respond to the show cause order. Based on this procedural history, the Court finds it 

appropriate to dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). As not all 

parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

Case 4:19-cv-02558-YGR Document 6 Filed 07/09/19 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S.C. § 636(c), the Court requests this case be reassigned to a District Judge for disposition with 

the recommendation that the Court DISMISS this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

II. 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). “The 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)). 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).

III. DISCUSSION

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

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.’” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 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. Regan delayed 

adjudication of the claims in this case by failing to file an amended complaint and failing to 

respond to the 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; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“It is incumbent upon the 

Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants”).

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 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 

460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, “a presumption of prejudice arises from a 

Case 4:19-cv-02558-YGR Document 6 Filed 07/09/19 Page 2 of 4
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

plaintiff’s unexplained failure to prosecute.” Laurino v. 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.; Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. Here, Regan failed to respond to the order to 

show cause, offered no explanation for the failure to file an amended complaint, and did not 

request an extension of the filing deadline. 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 Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399 (“[T]he public policy 

favoring resolution on the merits clearly counsels against dismissal.”) (citation omitted); 

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits. Thus, this 

factor weighs against dismissal.”). “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, although this factor weighs against dismissal, the Court 

also recognizes that Regan has failed to file an amended complaint, failed to respond to the order 

to show cause, and done nothing to move this case toward disposition. Accordingly, this factor 

lends little support to Regan.

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

issuing a show cause order and giving Regan an opportunity to explain his failure to file an 

amended complaint. “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). Further, as Regan failed to respond, another 

order requiring him 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). Moreover, the order to show 

Case 4:19-cv-02558-YGR Document 6 Filed 07/09/19 Page 3 of 4
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

cause warned Regan of the risk of dismissal; thus, he cannot maintain the Court failed in its 

“obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” Oliva, 958 F.2d at 274; Ferdik, 963 

F.2d at 1262 (“a district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will 

result in dismissal can satisfy the consideration of alternatives requirement.”) (citation and 

quotations omitted). Accordingly, the final factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

IV. CONCLUSION

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

weigh in favor of dismissal. Regan failed to file an amended complaint and failed to respond to an 

order to show cause. Thus, Regan 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 Regan but dismissing the case without prejudice will 

preserve his ability 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 Regan did not yet consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, the 

Court requests the Clerk of Court reassign this case to a district court judge for disposition. The 

undersigned RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED 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 RECOMMENDED.

Dated: July 9, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-02558-YGR Document 6 Filed 07/09/19 Page 4 of 4