Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01737/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01737-2/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

DANIEL QUINTERO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

T. MIKE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01737-EPG (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

AND

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 Daniel Quintero is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his pleadings, Plaintiff alleges that a 

correctional officer refused to transfer his cell, directed a search of his cell that destroyed 

religious items, and placed him in another cell with a dangerous inmate.

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

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 17 Filed 10/22/24 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

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on August 14, 2023. (ECF No. 1). 

On May 15, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found that Plaintiff failed to state 

any cognizable claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to file amended complaint. (ECF No. 10).

Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on May 28, 2024. (ECF No. 11). 

The Court again screened Plaintiff’s complaint, again found it failed to state any cognizable 

claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to file amended complaint. (ECF No. 12).

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document that is labelled “Second Amended 

Complaint” (SAC). (ECF No. 14). However, the document appears to be a response to the 

Court’s screening order rather than an amended complaint. Even though it was filed on a 

standard “amended civil rights complaint” form, the form itself is largely blank. In place of 

description of claims, it states “see attached response to recommendation to file 2nd Amended 

Complaint,” (ECF No. 14 at 3), which appears to be a reference to the Court’s second 

Screening Order (ECF No. 12). Attached to the amended complaint form is a handwritten 

statement (ECF No. 14 at 5), with section titled “Amended Response to Section (B)” (ECF No. 

14 at 5) and has “Res. To Item (C)” (ECF No. 14 at 6), which seem to respond to Section “B. 

Linkage Requirement and Supervisory Liability” (ECF No. 12 at 6), and Section “C. Failure to 

Protect” (ECF No. 12 at 8) in the second Screening Order, respectively.

On September 10, 2024, the Court issued an order giving Plaintiff one final opportunity 

to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (ECF No. 15). The Court advised Plaintiff that 

this amended complaint “must be complete in itself without reference to any earlier 

documents.” (Id. at 5). In the alternative, the Court stated that Plaintiff “may file a statement 

with the Court that he wants to stand on his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14), in 

which case the Court will screen it but without reference to any earlier complaint or document.” 

(ECF No. 15 at 5). 

The deadline to respond to the Court’s order has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed 

a third amended complaint or a statement with the Court that he wishes to proceed on his 

second amended complaint, or had otherwise communicated with the Court. 

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 17 Filed 10/22/24 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

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 

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 file a third amended 

complaint or otherwise notify the Court that he wants to stand on his second amended 

complaint as required by a court order. Allowing this case to proceed further without any 

indication that Plaintiff intends to prosecute his 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 

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 17 Filed 10/22/24 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

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. Monetary sanctions are of little use, considering Plaintiff’s incarceration and in 

forma pauperis status. (See ECF No. 9). 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 ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a 

district judge to this action.

The Court further RECOMMENDS 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 

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 17 Filed 10/22/24 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

thirty 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.” 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 22, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 17 Filed 10/22/24 Page 5 of 5