Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01569/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01569-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK MARC COOLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1569 DFL JFM PS

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPUTIES C. BRADFORD and

A. ROPER, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

Defendants’ motion to dismiss came on regularly for hearing February 9, 2006. 

Plaintiff failed to appear. Erick C. Turner appeared for defendants. Upon review of the motion

and the documents in support, upon hearing from counsel and good cause appearing therefor,

THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff initiated this action on August 9, 2005. Defendants filed a motion to

dismiss on December 19, 2005, to which plaintiff did not timely respond. By order filed January

17, 2006, plaintiff was given additional time in which to file opposition to defendants’ motion

and was cautioned that failure to file opposition would be deemed as a statement of nonopposition. Plaintiff still has not filed an opposition. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for dismissal of actions based on

lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure,

Case 2:05-cv-01569-DFL -JFM Document 14 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987). In determining whether to dismiss for lack of prosecution, generally the court

considers (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. See, e.g.,

Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). The court may dismiss a case sua

sponte for lack of prosecution by the plaintiff. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel,

Inc., 898 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 1990). Sua sponte dismissal requires a “close focus” on

consideration of “less drastic alternatives” and whether or not there has been a “warning of

imminent dismissal of the case.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In determining that this action will be dismissed, the court has considered all the

factors set forth in Al-Torki. The first two factors on their face favor the imposition of sanctions

in this case which has been pending for some time. Compare Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d

652, 656 (9th Cir.1990). Regarding the third factor, defendant already has briefed its motion to

dismiss, and would be prejudiced by the need for further litigation of this matter despite

plaintiff’s non-responsiveness. Moreover, delay itself generally is prejudicial--witness memories

fade and evidence becomes stale or undiscoverable. While the fourth factor favors resolution on

the merits, in this case plaintiff has declined to oppose the motion to dismiss and has thus

precluded the court’s evaluation of the potential merits of such an opposition. Under these

circumstances, the fourth factor is outweighed by the others. 

Focusing on the fifth Al-Torki factor and warning regarding imminent dismissal,

as required by Oliva, the court in its January 17, 2006 order has advised plaintiff that this action

is subject to dismissal, directed plaintiff to file opposition, and granted ample additional time to

oppose the pending motion after plaintiff failed to timely oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss,

all to no avail. From plaintiff’s failure to appear at today’s hearing, it appears that plaintiff has

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01569-DFL -JFM Document 14 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

abandoned this litigation. The court therefore concludes there is no suitable alternative less

drastic sanction to dismissal.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

with prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 13, 2006. 

/cooley.57

Case 2:05-cv-01569-DFL -JFM Document 14 Filed 02/13/06 Page 3 of 3