United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Through these findings and recommendations, the undersigned recommends that plaintiffs' case be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs' case be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Plaintiffs Toni Marshbanks and Dorothe Marshbanks (collectively "plaintiffs") are proceeding without counsel in this action.
On April 9, 2014, the undersigned granted plaintiffs' application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed their complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and gave them leave to file an amended pleading within 45 days. (ECF No. 6.) The order concluded, "[f]ailure to timely file an amended complaint that complies with this order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)." ( Id. at 13.)
Plaintiffs failed to file an amended pleading by the 45-day deadline, and the court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC"). (OSC, ECF No. 7.) The OSC gave plaintiffs an extended deadline of June 27, 2014, 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 undersigned warned plaintiffs that their " failure to file the required writing and amended complaint shall constitute an additional ground for, and plaintiffs' consent to, the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including a recommendation that plaintiffs' case be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 110 and 183(a). " ( Id. at 3 (emphasis in original).)
The deadline of June 27, 2014, has come and gone. Once again, plaintiffs have 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. 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 ...