Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00590/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00590-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Audrey King
Defendant
Gregory Ell Shehee
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

AUDREY KING,

 Defendant.

1:14-cv-00590-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 

ORDER

(Doc. 4.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY 

DAYS

On May 2, 2014, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit a non-prisoner 

application to proceed in forma pauperis to the court, within thirty days. (Doc. 4.) The thirtyday deadline has expired, and Plaintiff has not submitted the required application, or otherwise 

responded to the court's order.

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives 

set forth in its order, Athe 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)).

Case 1:14-cv-00590-AWI-GSA Document 8 Filed 06/18/14 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

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)), and here, the 

action has been pending since April 23, 2014. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order 

may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot 

continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by 

resolving the payment of the filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors 

weigh in favor of dismissal.

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

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (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 respond to the Court's order that is causing delay. 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. Plaintiff has not paid the 

filing fee for this action, making it likely that Plaintiff is indigent and monetary sanctions are of 

little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or 

witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is 

without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of 

dismissal with prejudice.

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

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed

without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the court=s order of May 2, 2014. 

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 thirty 

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00590-AWI-GSA Document 8 Filed 06/18/14 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

Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00590-AWI-GSA Document 8 Filed 06/18/14 Page 3 of 3