Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00414/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00414-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

MANUEL ALYALA ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0414 FCD EFB PS

vs.

DEPUTY ROBINSON, et al.,, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants. 

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It was before

the undersigned on August 29, 2007, for hearing on defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff’s

Rule 26(a) initial disclosures and for an award of sanctions. Jesse M. Rivera appeared on behalf

of defendants. Plaintiff filed no opposition to the defendants’ motion and failed to appear at the

hearing. 

On May 23, 2007, this court issued a scheduling order setting discovery cut-off for

October 17, 2007. Despite this impending deadline and defendants’ efforts to communicate with

him, plaintiff failed to produce initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).

Accordingly, defendants moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A), for an order compelling

plaintiff to produce his initial disclosures and sanctioning plaintiff for his failure to do so or

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 4
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

otherwise respond to defendants. 

Rule 26(a) requires parties to disclose, without awaiting a discovery request, information

about witnesses, documents, damages, and other relevant information fourteen days before the

Rule 26(f) conference of the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). The Rule 26(f) conference is to

occur at least twenty-one days before a scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is

due. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), substantial penalties may be

applied to “a party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by

Rule 26(a).” 

However, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(E), certain proceedings are exempted from

the initial disclosure requirements, including actions brought by persons without counsel and in

custody. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(E)(iv). At the hearing, defense counsel represented that

plaintiff may be in custody, but that he did not know for certain. The court has reviewed its

records, which show that plaintiff’s address of record is a post office box in Sacramento. This is

hardly determinative of whether or not plaintiff is in custody. Nonetheless, the Local Rules of

this court require all parties, including those appearing in propria persona, to keep the court

apprised of their current address. E.D. Cal. L.R. 83-183(b). 

Given plaintiff’s failure to participate in the discovery process, respond to defendants’

motion, or appear at the hearing, the court indicated that it was inclined to grant defendants’

motion and award appropriate sanctions. However, the court was troubled by defense counsel’s

intimation that plaintiff may be in custody. Accordingly, the court delayed ruling on the

discovery motion, and on September 4, 2007, ordered plaintiff to show cause within fifteen days

why the motion should not be granted, and to file a verification regarding whether or not he was

in custody. 

The time for responding to the order to show cause has run, and plaintiff has failed to

respond. In its order to show cause, the court cautioned plaintiff that failure to respond could

result in sanctions, including a recommendation that the action be dismissed. See E.D. Cal. L.R.

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 4
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

11-110. 

A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b). Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); McKeever v. Block, 932

F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and 

the court’s need to manage its docket direct that this case be dismissed. Moreover, plaintiff has

done nothing to lessen the risk of prejudice to the defendants. Plaintiff has failed to respond to

any of defendants’ efforts to commence discovery, and has failed to appear at the hearing on the

motion compelling his cooperation. Moreover, he has failed to file anything with the court

indicating a new address. Plaintiff’s failure in this regard has caused defendants further expense

as they had to seek an extension of the deadlines set forth in the court’s scheduling order. The

record reflects that plaintiff’s last filing in this action was on April 25, 2007, despite defendants’

motion to compel and this court’s order to show cause. Even if plaintiff’s failure to respond to

either the order or defendants’ motion was caused by a failure to receive them, it is each party’s

duty to apprise the court of any change of address. E.D. Cal. L.R. 83-183(b). 

Based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and respond to court orders, the court

finds that dismissal is an appropriate sanction. Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED

that this action be dismissed, and that the Clerk be directed to close this case. If the district

judge adopts these findings and recommendations, the court further recommends that

defendants’ pending discovery motion be denied as moot. 

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 (10)

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 (10) 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

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 10, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00414-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 10/10/07 Page 4 of 4