Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01134/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01134-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

SPENCER E. BERRY,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. LEWIS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-01134-LJO-EPG-PC

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER

(ECF Nos. 26, 27)

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Spencer E. Berry (“Plaintiff”), is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on July 13, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 23, 2016. (ECF No. 26.) 

The Court screened the FAC pursuant to its authority in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on 

November 7, 2016. (ECF No. 27.) The screening order found that the FAC failed to state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted. (Id.) Plaintiff was specifically directed to take action 

within 30 days from the screening order to either: 1) file a Second Amended Complaint; or 2)

“[n]otify the Court in writing that he does not agree to file a Second Amended Complaint, in 

which case this Court will issue findings and recommendations to the district judge consistent 

with this order.” (Id. at 11.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01134-LJO-EPG Document 28 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff failed to file a Second Amended Complaint or notify the Court of his election 

to stand on the FAC within the 30 day period. 

“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] 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 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)).

A>The 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)). While it has 

only been approximately sixty days since Plaintiff was ordered to file a Second Amended 

Complaint, the case has been pending since July of 2015, and there is no operative complaint in 

this case.

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

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citing Yourish at 991). 

However, Adelay inherently increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence 

will become stale,@ id., and it is Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint that is causing 

delay. The case is over a year old and there is no operative complaint. The case is now stalled. 

Therefore, the third factor 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 scarce resources. Monetary sanctions are of 

little use, considering Plaintiff’s incarceration and in forma pauperis status, and given the stage 

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

is a harsh sanction, Plaintiff’s complaint has already been dismissed (with leave to amend) for 

failure to state a claim and there is no operative complaint.

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

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

Case 1:15-cv-01134-LJO-EPG Document 28 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, the Court will recommend dismissal of this case for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted1and for failure to comply with a Court order.

These findings and recommendations are 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 fourteen

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

written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 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: January 11, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The Court hereby incorporates by reference its 28 U.S.C. § 1915A screening analysis concerning the 

FAC in the order dated November 7, 2016. (ECF No. 27.)

Case 1:15-cv-01134-LJO-EPG Document 28 Filed 01/11/17 Page 3 of 3