Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00897/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00897-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONYA Y. COVEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HARRIS, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0897-JAM-KJN-PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Through these findings and recommendations, the undersigned recommends that 

plaintiff‟s case be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff twice failed to file an amended pleading

despite receiving extra time to do so and despite having been warned of the consequences. For 

the reasons described below, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff‟s case be dismissed 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sonya Y. Covey (“plaintiff”) is proceeding without counsel in this action.

1

On May 24, 2013, the undersigned granted plaintiff‟s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, dismissed her complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and 

gave her leave to file an amended pleading within 45 days. (ECF No. 3.) 

 

1

 This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local 

Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Case 2:13-cv-00897-JAM-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 8
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

Plaintiff failed to file an amended pleading by the 45-day deadline, and the court issued an 

Order to Show Cause (“OSC”). (OSC, ECF No. 4.) The OSC gave plaintiff an extended deadline 

of September 16, 2013, in which to file: (1) an amended pleading; and (2) a writing explaining 

why the case should not be dismissed given plaintiff‟s delay in meeting the court‟s deadline. (Id.)

The OSC also informed plaintiff that her failure to comply with court orders and timely prosecute 

her action would lead to a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b), as well as Eastern District Local Rules 110 and 183(a). (Id.)

On September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a two-page handwritten document in apparent 

efforts to comply with the court‟s OSC. (ECF No. 5.) The two-page handwritten document did 

not clearly explain why plaintiff failed to meet the court‟s deadline and did not clearly amend 

plaintiff‟s former pleading. (Id.) Instead, the two-page writing stated, in pertinent part:

that plaintiff is “asking for the case . . . to be amended for the third 

time;” that plaintiff has “not been served or notified in a timely 

manner;” that since her filing, plaintiff and her family “have not 

been protected;” that plaintiff has been “attacked, and violently 

bitten resulting in a shoulder injury and treatment for human bites at 

Kaiser;” that plaintiff‟s life has been “put in danger once again;” 

that plaintiff‟s children‟s lives have been “put in danger as a result 

of [her] filing the claim against magistrate Harris and Taniesha 

Harris;” that “documents from medical clinics” have been falsified 

and “entered into public health and safety data base[s]” regarding 

plaintiff as a parent; that plaintiff has been “denied visits . . . at the 

Sacramento County Jail;” that plaintiff has “been continuously 

harassed and still [there is] no resolution;” that “bank info” is “still 

compromised;” and that plaintiff is “not protected at all.”

(ECF No. 5 at 1-2.) 

The undersigned declined to construe plaintiff‟s two-page filing as an amended pleading

because it failed to remedy any of the defects described in the court‟s order of May 24, 2013, and 

on October 10, 2013, again ordered plaintiff to file an amended pleading in accordance therewith. 

(ECF No. 6.) In particular, the undersigned explained that, “[i]n an abundance of caution given 

both plaintiff‟s pro se status and the fact that her two-page filing can generously be construed as a 

written response to the OSC, the OSC is partially discharged. The court will also give plaintiff a 

final opportunity in which to file an amended pleading pursuant to the court‟s order of May 24, 

2013 (ECF No. 3).” (ECF No. 6 at 3 (emphasis added).) 

Case 2:13-cv-00897-JAM-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 8
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

The undersigned again cautioned plaintiff that:

As she has now been informed several times (ECF Nos. 3-4), 

plaintiff is obligated to comply with the rules of litigation procedure 

notwithstanding her status as a pro se litigant, and her failure to do 

so will subject her to sanctions — including the potential dismissal 

of her case. E.D. Cal. L.R. 110, 183(a). Plaintiff‟s failure to timely 

file an amended pleading pursuant to this order and with the court‟s 

order of May 24, 2013 (ECF No. 3) will result in a recommendation 

that this case be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 

(1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a 

suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. 

U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that 

courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff‟s failure to prosecute or 

comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court‟s orders); 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may 

dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the 

court.”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); Thompson v. Housing 

Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per 

curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control 

their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal), cert. 

denied, 479 U.S. 829 (1986). Accordingly, plaintiff‟s failure to file 

an amended pleading by the deadline stated herein will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

(ECF No. 6 at 3.) The undersigned again warned plaintiff that her “failure to timely file an 

amended pleading that complies with the court’s order (ECF No. 3) will result in a 

recommendation that the case be dismissed.” (ECF No. 6 at 4 (emphasis in original).) 

The deadline of November 18, 2013, has come and gone. Once again, plaintiff has not 

filed an amended pleading. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 

prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court‟s local 

rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Specifically, the court 

must consider:

(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 alternatives.

Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002); Ghazali v. 

Case 2:13-cv-00897-JAM-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 3 of 8
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

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that 

“[t]hese factors are not a series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything, but a 

way for a district judge to think about what to do.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. 

Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 

with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of 

any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney 

is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 

Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on 

“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria 

persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, 

judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these 

Rules.

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). Case law is in 

accord that a district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff‟s 

case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his 

or her case or fails to comply with the court‟s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the 

court‟s local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a 

court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation 

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss 

an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff‟s failure to 

prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court‟s orders); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 

(“Failure to follow a district court‟s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 

F.2d at 1260 (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss 

an action for failure to comply with any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City 

of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent 

power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal or default).

////

Case 2:13-cv-00897-JAM-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 4 of 8
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

III. DISCUSSION 

Although involuntary dismissal can be a harsh remedy, on balance the five relevant Ferdik

factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. The first two 

Ferdik factors strongly support dismissal here. Plaintiff‟s failures to timely file an amended 

pleading, despite clear warnings of the consequences (ECF Nos. 3 at 11; 4 at 3; 6 at 4) strongly 

suggest that plaintiff is not interested in seriously prosecuting this case, or at least, does not take 

her obligations to the court and other parties seriously. See, e.g., Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 

F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public‟s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 

favors dismissal”). Any further time spent by the court on this case, which plaintiff has 

demonstrated a lack of any serious intention to pursue, will consume scarce judicial resources and 

take away from other active cases. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts 

have inherent power to manage their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). 

Further, this is not plaintiff‟s first failure to comply with a court order. When plaintiff 

initially failed to file an amended pleading after the court‟s order of May 24, 2013, the court 

extended plaintiff‟s deadline to complete such filing and warned plaintiff that her failure to meet 

the extended deadline would result in a recommendation of dismissal. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff 

failed to file an amended pleading by the extended deadline, but she filed a two-page document 

apparently in response to the court‟s order to show cause, so the court gave her yet another 

extension in which to file an amended pleading. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff again failed to meet that 

twice-extended deadline. Despite receiving warnings and multiple chances, plaintiff‟s failures to 

comply with court orders directing her to file an amended pleading (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 6) illustrate

plaintiff‟s demonstrated lack of any serious intention to pursue this case. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1261.

The third Ferdik factor, prejudice to a defendant, also favors dismissal. Due to the defects 

within plaintiff‟s pleading, service of process upon defendants has not been ordered. 

Nevertheless, defendants remain named in a lawsuit. It is difficult to quantify the prejudice 

suffered by defendants here; however, it is enough that defendants have been named in litigation

that plaintiff has effectively abandoned. At a minimum, plaintiff‟s unreasonable delay in 

Case 2:13-cv-00897-JAM-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 5 of 8
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

6

prosecuting this action have prevented defendants from attempting to resolve this case on the 

merits. Unreasonable delay is presumed to be prejudicial. See, e.g., In re Phenylpropanolamine 

(PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d at 1227. 

The fifth Ferdik factor, which considers the availability of less drastic measures, also 

supports dismissal of this action. As noted above, the court has actually pursued remedies that 

are less drastic than a recommendation of dismissal. See Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 

128, 132 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[E]xplicit discussion of alternatives is unnecessary if the district court 

actually tries alternatives before employing the ultimate sanction of dismissal”). For instance, the 

court gave plaintiff multiple opportunities to amend her defective pleading. (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 6.)

The court also advised plaintiff that she was required to actively prosecute her action and follow 

the court‟s orders. (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 6.) It also repeatedly warned plaintiff in plain terms that 

failure to comply with court orders and failure to file an amended pleading would result in a 

recommendation of dismissal. (ECF Nos. 3 at 11; 4 at 3; 6 at 4.) Warning a plaintiff that failure 

to take steps towards resolution of his or her action will cause the action to be dismissed satisfies 

the requirement that the court consider alternative measures. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 

(“[O]ur decisions also suggest that 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”) 

(citing Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33). 

At this juncture, the court finds no suitable alternative to a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed. In light of plaintiff‟s failures to file an amended pleading despite the court‟s 

giving her additional chances to do so (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 6), and in light of plaintiff‟s in forma 

pauperis status, the court has little confidence that plaintiff would pay monetary sanctions if they 

were imposed in lieu of dismissal. Plaintiff disregarded the court‟s orders to file an amended 

pleading even though those orders explicitly warned her that failing to do so would result in a 

recommendation that her case be dismissed. (ECF Nos. 3 at 11; 4 at 3; 6 at 4.) 

The court also recognizes the importance of giving due weight to the fourth Ferdik factor, 

which addresses the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits. However, for the 

reasons set forth above, factors one, two, three, and five support a recommendation of dismissal 

Case 2:13-cv-00897-JAM-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 6 of 8
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

7

of this action, and factor four does not materially counsel otherwise. Dismissal is proper “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) (citations and quotation marks 

omitted). Under the circumstances of this case, the other relevant factors outweigh the general 

public policy favoring disposition of actions on their merits. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263. If 

anything, a disposition on the merits has been hindered by plaintiff‟s own failures to comply with 

the court‟s orders and the rules of litigation procedure. 

In sum, the court endeavors to give pro se litigants who are unfamiliar with court 

procedures a fair opportunity to present their cases. As such, the court has given plaintiff several

opportunities to amend her defective pleading. Yet plaintiff did not seize upon these 

opportunities. The court has also provided plaintiff with cautionary instructions and afforded 

plaintiff some leniency with respect to the litigation. However, at some point, leniency must give 

way to considerations of limited court resources and fairness to the other compliant litigants.

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b).

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case and vacate all dates. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

////

////

////

Case 2:13-cv-00897-JAM-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 7 of 8
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

8

waive the right to appeal the District Court‟s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: January 7, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-00897-JAM-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 8 of 8