Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hall v. Crow

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 13, 2019

ALEXANDER CONTE HALL, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT A. CROW, et al. Defendant.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER

          JENNIFER L. THURSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action by failing to serve the summons and complaint and he was failed to comply with the Court's order to serve the documents, the Court recommends the action be DISMISSED without prejudice.

         I. Relevant Background

         Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on January 10, 2019. (Doc. 1) After he paid the filing fee on March 7, 2019, the Court issued the summons and its order setting a mandatory scheduling conference for June 3, 2019. (Docs. 8, 9) In the order setting the conference, the Court indicated:

The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall diligently pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants against whom plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims. Plaintiff(s) shall promptly file proofs of service of the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service. Counsel are referred to F.R.Civ.P., Rule 4 regarding the requirement of timely service of the complaint. Failure to timely serve the summons and complaint may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.

(Doc. 7 at 1) Despite this, Plaintiff failed filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint.

         On May 22, 2019, the Court issued an order to Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions- including dismissal of the action- should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the Court's order and failure to prosecute. (Doc. 10) In the alternative, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service no later than June 7, 2019. (Id. at 1) Plaintiff failed respond to the orders.

         On June 11, 2019, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that the action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with the Court's orders. (Doc. 11) On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff belatedly objected to the recommendations, reporting he had attempted service but was hampered by his limited resources and in-custody status. (Doc. 13 at 2) Therefore, Plaintiff requested the Court “allow him additional time to [serve] defendant the summons and complaint.” (Id. at 3) Accordingly, the Court withdrew the recommendation for dismissal and granted Plaintiff an additional thirty days to serve the summons and complaint and file proof of service. (Doc. 13 at 2) Plaintiff was “advised that his failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the matter be dismissed.” (Id. at 2) To date, Plaintiff has not filed proof of service, or taken any other action to continue prosecuting his complaint.

         II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court's Orders

         The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets, ” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action for a party's failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

         III. Discussion and Analysis

         To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(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 sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.

         A. Public interest and the Court's docket

         In the case at hand, the public's interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will not hold, this case in abeyance based upon Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's orders and failure to take action to continue prosecution in a timely manner. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (a plaintiff has ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.