Chavez v. Cal-Fire, 1:20-cv-00801

Plaintiff Pablo Chavez, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a § 1983 suit based on events from October 8, 2014 while assigned to a fire crew.
On November 22, 2021, the magistrate judge screened the complaint, concluded it failed to state a cognizable claim (and appeared time‑barred), and gave Chavez 30 days to: (1) file an amended complaint, (2) elect to stand on the complaint, or (3) voluntarily dismiss the case.
The screening order expressly warned that failure to timely choose among those options would result in a recommendation to dismiss for failure to comply and failure to prosecute.
The 30‑day deadline passed with no response from Chavez and no request for extension; docket indicates no further action by plaintiff.
The magistrate judge evaluated the required Rule 41(b) factors (public interest in expeditious resolution; docket management; prejudice to defendants; public policy favoring disposition on the merits; availability of lesser sanctions) and found dismissal appropriate.
The magistrate recommended dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rule 110; the findings and recommendations were issued September 26, 2022, with a 14‑day objection period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute/comply with court order is appropriate	Chavez did not respond to the screening order and offered no argument	Defendants did not actively oppose in the record; court considered potential prejudice to defendants	Magistrate recommends dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rule 110 because Chavez failed to act after warning and deadline lapsed
Whether lesser sanctions are adequate	No response or request for extension; no position urging lesser sanctions	N/A (no active defense briefing)	Court found lesser sanctions futile given Chavez’s nonresponse and imposed dismissal without prejudice
Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice	Chavez did not argue for preservation of claims	N/A	Dismissal recommended without prejudice (less severe than dismissal with prejudice)

Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019) (district courts must analyze the Rule 41(b) five‑factor test before involuntary dismissal)
Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts may dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b) in appropriate circumstances)
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (docket management justifies dismissal when litigant repeatedly fails to follow rules)
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court orders; explicit findings on each factor not required)
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) (review of the five‑factor standard for dismissal under Rule 41(b))
Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1968) (delay can cause prejudice to defendants through loss of evidence or witnesses)
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge findings may waive appellate rights)