Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00476-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathy Davis
Defendant
Candace Smith
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

CANDACE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHY DAVIS,

Defendant.

1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG (PC)

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 Candace Smith is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this action on April 22, 2024. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened 

Plaintiff’s complaint on June 27, 2024. (ECF No. 6). As stated in the Court’s screening order, 

“It is not clear what Plaintiff alleges and against whom,” but the complaint generally appears to 

allege that Kathy Davis, a “DMV judge,” participated in organized crime, crime against 

musicians, corruption under oath, sexual assault, property theft, and other torts. (ECF No. 6 at 

1, 3).

Case 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 08/27/24 Page 1 of 4
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

The Court’s screening order concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to comply with 

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that it failed to state any cognizable claims. 

(ECF No. 6 at 3). Plaintiff was granted 30 days in which to file an amended complaint or to 

inform the Court that she wished to stand on her original complaint. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff was 

advised of the requirements for an amended complaint and instructed that if she chose to stand 

on her original complaint, “the Court will issue findings and recommendations to a district 

judge recommending dismissal of the action consistent with this order.” (Id.). The Court also 

warned Plaintiff that, “Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this 

action.” (Id.).

The deadline to respond to the Court’s screening order has now passed, and Plaintiff has 

not filed an amended complaint or a statement with the Court that she wishes to stand on her

original complaint. 

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 

Case 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 08/27/24 Page 2 of 4
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

management and the public interest.” Id. Here, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint 

or otherwise notify the Court that she wants to stand on her complaint as required by a court 

order. Allowing this case to proceed further without any indication that Plaintiff intends to 

prosecute her 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. Monetary sanctions are of little use, considering Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. 

See ECF No. 4. 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.

Case 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 08/27/24 Page 3 of 4
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

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 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: August 27, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 08/27/24 Page 4 of 4