Jason Allan Singer v. Matthew Braman
1:17-cv-00725-ADA-EPG
E.D. Cal.Jul 31, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jason Allan Singer filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Downtowner Inn and three employees alleging they conspired with the Bakersfield Police to cause him injury.
- Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status and the Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- On June 15, 2017 the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim but granted leave to amend and provided legal guidance.
- The Court set a July 17, 2017 deadline for an amended complaint and warned that failure to amend would result in dismissal.
- Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise prosecute the case after the screening order.
- The magistrate judge applied the Ninth Circuit factors for dismissal and recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the Court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a cognizable § 1983 claim | Singer alleges conspiracy between hotel employees and police caused injury | No responsive filings by defendants in record; Court assessed complaint on its face | Court found complaint failed to state a claim and dismissed with leave to amend |
| Whether dismissal is appropriate for failure to prosecute/follow court order | Singer did not present arguments after screening order | Court invoked its inherent/docket-manage power to sanction, including dismissal | Court recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the June 15, 2017 order |
| Whether lesser sanctions than dismissal were available | Singer did not seek relief or propose alternatives | Court had given explicit warning that failure to amend would result in dismissal | Court concluded warning satisfied requirement to consider alternatives and dismissal was warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (district courts have inherent power to control docket and impose sanctions including dismissal)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rules)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with order to amend complaint)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and noncompliance with rules)
- Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976) (unreasonable delay in prosecution gives rise to presumption of prejudice)
- Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (failure to file objections to magistrate judge’s findings may waive right to appeal)