Damonte Roberson v. Lompoc Federal Prison
2:20-cv-00987
C.D. Cal.Apr 7, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Damonte Roberson, a pro se prisoner at USP Lompoc, filed a civil-rights complaint on January 30, 2020 without paying the filing fee or filing an IFP application.
- The Court issued an order (Feb. 3, 2020) directing Roberson to pay the fee, file an IFP request, or show cause by March 4, 2020 and warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
- Roberson did not respond, pay the fee, or otherwise comply with the Court’s order.
- The Court considered dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and applied the Pagtalunan five-factor framework for dismissal for failure to comply with court orders.
- The Court found factors 1 (public interest in expeditious resolution), 2 (docket management), 3 (prejudice to defendants), and 5 (availability of less drastic sanctions) favored dismissal; factor 4 (policy favoring resolution on the merits) weighed against dismissal but was outweighed.
- The action was dismissed without prejudice; judgment to be entered on April 7, 2020.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to pay filing fee or file IFP and to obey a court order warrants dismissal | No response or argument provided by Roberson | No opposition from defendants; Court sought dismissal under Rule 41(b) | Dismissal warranted for failure to pay/file IFP and comply with court orders; case dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether the Pagtalunan five-factor test supports dismissal | No argument presented | Court applied the five-factor balancing test | Factors 1,2,3,5 weigh for dismissal; factor 4 weighs against but is outweighed |
| Whether less drastic sanctions were available before dismissal | No response | Court previously warned plaintiff and considered alternatives | No adequate lesser sanction; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice | No argument | Court chose remedy | Dismissal ordered without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (recognizing district courts' authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (establishing five-factor test for dismissal for failure to comply with orders)
- Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (public interest in expeditious resolution favors dismissal)
- In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447 (presumption of prejudice from unreasonable delay)
- Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522 (discussion of prejudice presumption from delay)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (district court must explore possible and meaningful alternatives before dismissal)
- Morris v. Morgan Stanley Co., 942 F.2d 648 (policy favoring disposition on the merits but responsibility lies with the moving party)