Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02108/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02108-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CDCR
Defendant
Robin Gillen Starr
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN GILLEN STARR,

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

CDCR,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER

(Doc. 23.) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS

On June 26, 2012, the court issued an order granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an

amended complaint, allowing Plaintiff thirty days in which to file the amended complaint. (Doc. 23.) 

More than sixty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint 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, “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 availabilityof less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policyfavoring

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)). 

///

1

Case 1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA Document 42 Filed 09/25/12 Page 1 of 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

“‘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 December 2011. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order may reflect

Plaintiff's willingness to proceed with the original Complaint, but Plaintiff has not informed the Court. 

In such an instance, the Court cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will

not help himself by submitting the amended complaint, or otherwise responding to the Court's order, so

that his case can proceed. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of

itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay 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 is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action,

making monetary sanctions 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 based on

plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of June 26, 2012. 

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 Judge's Findings and

2

Case 1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA Document 42 Filed 09/25/12 Page 2 of 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

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: September 25, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA Document 42 Filed 09/25/12 Page 3 of 3