Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02955/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02955-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETE N. CAMARGO, Civil

No. 11-CV-2955-DMS-(PCL)

Plaintiff,

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO LITIGATE.

vs.

JESSIE ROTNER; TORRAY SCALES,

Defendants.

PETER C. LEWIS, United States Magistrate Judge.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Dana M.

Sabraw, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(1)(f) of the United States District Court for

the Southern District of California.

I. 

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Pete Camargo proceeds pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant

to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff alleges violations of

his 8th Amendment rights against use of excessive police force and cruel and unusual

punishment and his 14th Amendment due process rights. 

Defendant Brawley Police Department filed a motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim on July 26, 2012. [Doc. No. 17.] Plaintiff was granted leave to file an

-1- 11cv2955

Case 3:11-cv-02955-DMS-PCL Document 61 Filed 05/07/13 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

27

28

amended complaint alleging the policies and customs of Brawley’s police department

caused the constitutional violation alleged by plaintiff’s complaint. [Doc. No. 44.]

Plaintiff did not timely amend his complaint, and did not respond to the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, recommending to grant Defendant’s motion to

dismiss. As a result, the district court accepted the Report and Recommendation and

the case was dismissed as to Defendant Brawley Police Department. [Doc. No. 56.]

The claims against Defendants Rotner and Scales proceeded and an Early Neutral

Evaluation meeting (ENE) was scheduled for February 28, 2013. [Doc. No. 57.] 

Plaintiff spoke with the law clerk assigned to this case approximately one week

prior to the ENE. In this conversation Plaintiff was made aware that attendance at the

ENE was mandatory. Furthermore, Plaintiff, as a non-registered electronic filing user 

was served with this information via U.S. Mail Service. [Doc. No. 58.] Plaintiff failed

to file an ENE brief or attend the ENE.1

 [Doc. No. 58.] Accordingly, Plaintiff was

ordered to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to appear

and why the case should not be dismissed for failure to litigate. [Doc. No. 59.]

Plaintiff was ordered to file a memorandum no later than April 5, 2013. Plaintiff was

also ordered to appear before the Court to show cause why this Court should not

impose sanctions pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.1 and why Plaintiff’s case should

not be dismissed for failure to litigate. The hearing was scheduled for April 17, 2013.

[Doc. No. 59.] Plaintiff failed to both file the memorandum and attend the hearing.

[Doc. No. 60.] With the exception of the phone call prior to the ENE conference in

February, Plaintiff has failed to act on his case for over ten months.

///

///

///

///

///

1

Defendants traveled from San Diego and Riverside to attend the ENE and waited approximately 

ninety minutes for Plaintiff. 

-2- 11cv2955

Case 3:11-cv-02955-DMS-PCL Document 61 Filed 05/07/13 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

27

28

II. 

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the district court may dismiss an

action for failure to litigate or comply with any court order2

. In determining whether

to dismiss an action for want of litigation, district courts are directed to liberally

construe pro se plaintiff’s inartful pleading. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365

(1982). In determining whether to dismiss a case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b), the district court weighs five factors: 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 alternatives. Henderson v.

Duncan 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) .

Here, Plaintiff has given the litigation that he pursues minimal diligence.

Plaintiff failed to file an ENE brief, attend the ENE, and ignored the order to show

cause, despite the warning that his failure to litigate could result in dismissal. The last

noted action on Plaintiff’s complaint on the docket was filing Process Receipt and

Return documents for the three original Defendants on June 20, 2012. This inaction

goes beyond the permissive “inartful pleading” of a pro se plaintiff and represents a

long-term failure to litigate. Given that Defendants have timely complied with all

orders of the Court, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute for almost eleven months has

created an inordinate delay for both Defendants and the Court in bringing this matter

to an expeditious conclusion. Additionally, Local Rule 41.1 provides that actions

pending in excess of six months without any proceeding or discovery may be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Per Local Rule, this dismissal is without prejudice

unless otherwise ordered, however, dismissing this case with prejudice, per Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) would not be an abuse of the district court’s discretion.

Accordingly, this Court recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with prejudice.

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

-3- 11cv2955

Case 3:11-cv-02955-DMS-PCL Document 61 Filed 05/07/13 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

27

28

III. 

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court

issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation, (2)

dismissing this action and all claims with prejudice against Defendants Rotner and

Scales.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than June 4, 2013, any party to this action may

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed

with the Court and served on all parties no later than June 18, 2013. The parties are

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

raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d

449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998; Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 7, 2013

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

CC: ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD

-4- 11cv2955

Case 3:11-cv-02955-DMS-PCL Document 61 Filed 05/07/13 Page 4 of 4