Reyes
Reyes v. City of Glendale
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiff Ricardo Rivera Reyes appeals the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 wrongful-incarceration action against Defendants City of Glendale, Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, City of Madera, Madera Police Department, County of Madera, and Justin Darby. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366-67 (9th Cir.1996), we reverse and remand.
“Dismissal ... is so harsh a penalty it should be imposed as a sanction only in extreme circumstances.” Thompson v. Hotos. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam).
Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 990 (9th Cir.1999) (alteration, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court held that the public policy favoring disposition of the case on the merits (factor four) did not support dismissal, and we agree. Plaintiff appears to have a strong case on the merits and, as in Dahl, 84 F.3d at 366 , “[t]he underlying claim of [wrongful incarceration] in this case is a serious one, calling into question the manner by which the state exercises its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Thus, the public has an…
Dissenting Opinion
Graber, J.
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. Plaintiff missed numerous filing deadlines, failed outright to file certain documents, repeatedly failed to request leave of the court to file documents late, and filed documents in improper form. In contrast to many cases, the district court here issued a- detailed ten-page written order describing the procedural history of the case and weighing the five factors. Although dismissal is a “harsh sanction,” Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir.2006), I find no clear error in the court’s factual findings, see id., and would hold that “at least four factors support dismissal ] or ... at least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 990 (9th Cir.1999).
In particular, although the prejudice to Defendants was not as great as in other cases, the risk of prejudice to Defendants (factor three) nevertheless supports dismissal. Further, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation (factor one), the court’s need to manage its docket (factor two), and the availability of less drastic alternatives (factor five) all strongly support dismissal. The penultimate occasion on which…