Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00753/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00753-1/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALVADOR MURRIETA- ESCAÑUELA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv753-WQH-PCL

ORDER

vs.

CITY OF CALEXICO, CALEXICO

POLICE OFFICER PETER WEST,

CALEXICO POLICE OFFICER ERIC

HACKET, CALEXICO POLICE

CHIEF JIM NEUJAHR, and DOES 1

to 20, inclusive, 

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant City of

Calexico (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 20).

BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint alleging

civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state civil rights violations, and tort

claims. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that “... on October 29, 2009 ... [Defendant]

maliciously, forcibly, and unlawfully assaulted, battered, tasered, seized and arrested

Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 7. On August 15, 2011, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. 

(ECF No. 4). 

On March 1, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mary F. Prevost, filed an Ex Parte Motion

- 1 - 11cv753-WQH-PCL

Case 3:11-cv-00753-WQH-PCL Document 21 Filed 01/09/14 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

27

28

to Withdraw as Attorney (ECF No. 13). Prevost stated that Plaintiff caused her to

become “unable to prosecute this case, [and] unable to respond in a timely manner to

defense counsel’s discovery request.” (Declaration of Mary F. Prevost, ECF No. 13-2

¶ 3). On March 11, 2013, the Court granted Prevost’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. 

(ECF No. 15). 

On April 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice Re Desire to Proceed to Trial Pro Se

Until New Counsel is Found, and Motion for Extension of Time to Find New Counsel. 

(ECF No. 16). On May 1, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of

Time to Find New Counsel, and ordered Plaintiff to notify the Court as to whether he

had retained counsel or would continue pro se no later than July 25, 2013. (ECF No.

17). The Court also ordered that the proposed pretrial order was to be filed by August

26, 2013, and the Pretrial Conference was to be held on September 27, 2013. Id. 

Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s May 1, 2013 Order. Plaintiff also failed

to appear at the Pretrial Conference on September 27, 2013. 

On October 15, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The docket reflects that Plaintiff

filed no opposition. 

DISCUSSION

A district court may properly grant an unopposed motion pursuant to a local rule

where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure

to respond. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil Local Rule 7.1

provides: “If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil

Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or

other request for ruling by the court.” S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). 

“Although there is ... a [public] policy favoring disposition on the merits, it is the

responsibility of the moving party to move towards that disposition at a reasonable

pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics.” In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454

(9th Cir. 1994) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute); see also

- 2 - 11cv753-WQH-PCL

Case 3:11-cv-00753-WQH-PCL Document 21 Filed 01/09/14 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

27

28

Steel v. City of San Diego, No. 09cv1743, 2009 WL 3715257, at *1 (S.D. Cal., Nov. 5,

2009) (dismissing action pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 for plaintiff’s failure to respond to

a motion to dismiss).

The docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with the Motion to Dismiss by mail

at the only address he has listed on the docket – P.O. Box 4640, Calexico, California,

92232-4640. (See ECF No. 20-3). The Motion to Dismiss and the Court’s docket

reflect that a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was noticed for November 18, 2013. 

Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides: “each party opposing a motion ... must file that

opposition ... with the clerk ... not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the

noticed hearing.” S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). The docket reflects that Plaintiff

has failed to file an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court concludes that “the

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its

docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the defendants” weigh in favor of granting the

Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants for failure to file an opposition. Ghazali, 46

F.3d at 53.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant (ECF

No. 20) is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DATED: January 9, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv753-WQH-PCL

Case 3:11-cv-00753-WQH-PCL Document 21 Filed 01/09/14 Page 3 of 3