Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00848/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00848-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
N. Griffith
Defendant
Ross Allen Wardlaw
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

ROSS ALLEN WARDLAW, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

N. GRIFFITH, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00848-AWI-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION

BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER

(ECF NOS. 1 & 13)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN

TWENTY-ONE DAYS

Ross Wardlaw (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on June 18, 2019. (ECF No. 1). 

On October 21, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it failed to state a 

claim. (ECF No. 13). The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days from the date of service of the order

to file an amended complaint or to notify the Court that he wants to stand on his complaint, 

subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to the district judge consistent with 

the screening order. (Id. at 8). The Court warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply with this 

order may result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id.)

The thirty-day period has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 

otherwise responded to the Court’s order. Accordingly, for the reasons described in the 

Case 1:19-cv-00848-AWI-EPG Document 14 Filed 01/03/20 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

screening order (ECF No. 13), the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. The Court will also recommend that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for

failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. 

“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] 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)). 

“‘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)). Accordingly, 

this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As to 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.... It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to 

routine noncompliance of litigants....” Pagtalunan, 291 at 639. Plaintiff has failed to respond 

to the Court’s screening order. This failure to respond is delaying the case and interfering with 

docket management. Therefore, the second factor weighs 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. 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 and to 

prosecute this case 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. Considering Plaintiff’s 

incarceration and in forma pauperis status, monetary sanctions are of little use. And, given the 

Case 1:19-cv-00848-AWI-EPG Document 14 Filed 01/03/20 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

stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. 

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

against dismissal. Id.

After weighing the factors, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to 

prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order; 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 

twenty-one (21) 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: January 3, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00848-AWI-EPG Document 14 Filed 01/03/20 Page 3 of 3