Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00552/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00552-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMSEY BERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SINATRA, et al.,

Defendants.

1:24-cv-00552-JLT-EPG

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS THIS ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH COURT’S ORDERS

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 30 

DAYS

Plaintiff Ramsey Berry is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff names as Defendants several officers with the Visalia Police 

Department.1 Plaintiff alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process 

was violated after he was shot several times by his wife following Defendants’ failure to place

an involuntary mental health hold on Plaintiff’s wife or to confiscate firearms from Plaintiff’s 

house. (ECF No. 2 at 26-33).2

Defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 7). However, Plaintiff has not responded to the motion 

and the time to do so has passed. 

1 Plaintiff also lists as defendants Does 1-40. (ECF No. 2 at 26, 31).

2 Page citations refer to the blue page numbers generated by the CM/ECF system that appear at the top 

of each page.

Case 1:24-cv-00552-JLT-EPG Document 13 Filed 10/10/24 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

For reasons stated below, the Court recommends that this case be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.

3

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff originally commenced this action in the Superior Court of California, County 

of Tulare, on July 14, 2023. (ECF No. 2 at 2). The action was subsequently removed to federal 

court on May 10, 2024. (Id.). Prior to removal, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Id.

at 22-33).

After filing an answer on May 13, 2024, the named Defendants filed a motion for 

judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on August 5, 

2024. (ECF Nos. 6, 7). On August 16, 2024, the motion was referred by the assigned District 

Judge to the undersigned for the preparation of findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 9). 

On August 29, 2024, Defendants filed a “reply” arguing that the motion should be granted 

because Plaintiff had failed to file a response within the time set forth under Local Rule 230(c). 

(ECF No. 11). In consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court issued a sua sponte

extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to the motion on September 4, 2024. (ECF No. 12).

The order granting the extension advised Plaintiff “that failure to file a response by this date 

may result in dismissal of this case.” (Id.).

The extended deadline to respond has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a response 

to Defendants’ motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action for failure 

to comply with court orders and to prosecute. In determining whether to dismiss an action 

under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a Court 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 

3 Because the Court finds that dismissal is warranted on these grounds, the Court does not address the 

substance of Defendants’ motion.

Case 1:24-cv-00552-JLT-EPG Document 13 Filed 10/10/24 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

favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

III. ANALYSIS

In applying the Pagtalunan factors to this case, the first factor weighs in favor of 

dismissal, because “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 

dismissal.” Id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

As to the second factor, the Court’s need to manage its docket, “[t]he trial judge is in 

the best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with docket 

management and the public interest.” Id. Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ 

motion for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

despite the Court’s sua sponte extension of time. Allowing this case to proceed further without 

any indication that Plaintiff intends to prosecute this case is a waste of judicial resources. See 

Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail, No. 2:13-cv-0324 AC P, 2018 WL 4352909, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

Sept. 12, 2018) (“The court will not continue to drag out these proceedings when it appears that 

plaintiffs have no intention of diligently pursuing this case.”). Therefore, the second factor 

weighs in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the third Pagtalunan factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, “pendency of a 

lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 

F.3d at 642 (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). However, “delay inherently increases the risk that 

witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” Id. at 643, and it is Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with a court order that is causing delay and preventing this case from 

progressing. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, the fourth Pagtalunan factor, 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 scarce 

resources. Considering Plaintiff has not made any filing or otherwise appeared in this case 

since it was removed five months ago, the Court has little assurance that issuing monetary 

Case 1:24-cv-00552-JLT-EPG Document 13 Filed 10/10/24 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

sanctions would not require ongoing Court supervision. And, given the stage of these 

proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. Moreover, dismissal 

without prejudice is the lesser sanction available to the Court. Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action with prejudice for failure to comply with court 

orders and to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. (41)(b); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 

630–31 (1962) (holding that Rule 41(b) allows sua sponte dismissal by the Court because 

“[t]he authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been 

considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily 

vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious 

disposition of cases.”) Therefore, the fourth factor also weighs in favor of dismissal.

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

against dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643.

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

After weighing the factors, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is 

appropriate.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to follow Court’s orders; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 

judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 

thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections shall be limited to fifteen (15) pages 

including exhibits.

\\\

Case 1:24-cv-00552-JLT-EPG Document 13 Filed 10/10/24 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

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 

the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00552-JLT-EPG Document 13 Filed 10/10/24 Page 5 of 5