Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06435/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06435-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE DERICK PAINTER, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6435 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

vs. BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO

OBEY A COURT ORDER

OBJECTIONS DUE JUNE 30, 2007

LEROY D. BACA, et al.,

[Doc. 23]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Defendants noticed plaintiff’s deposition for October 5, 2006. Plaintiff failed to appear at the

deposition. After plaintiff failed to contact defendants to reschedule the deposition as requested, on

November 3, 2006, defendants moved the Court for an order: (1) extending the discovery deadline to

permit the taking of plaintiff’s deposition; and (2) requiring that plaintiff appear at and participate in a

deposition within 30 days. On November 7, 2006, the Court ordered plaintiff to respond to defendants’

motion by November 17, 2006. Plaintiff failed to do so. On December 1, 2006, defendants filed the

present motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to appear for her properly noticed deposition and

failure to comply with court’s order. On December 5, 2006, the Court entered an order granting

defendants’ motion to compel and ordered plaintiff to attend her deposition at the Attorney General’s

Case 1:04-cv-06435-LJO-DLB Document 27 Filed 06/04/07 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

2

Office in Sacramento, California at a date and time to be specified by defendants. Since the filing of the

motion to dismiss, defendants have not advised the court whether plaintiff has complied with the order

to attend her deposition or otherwisemade contact with counsel. Plaintiff has not made any contact with

the Court since the original filing of this action. 

 In moving for dismissal, defendants note that despite defense counsel and the Court’s efforts to

obtain plaintiff’s involvement in this litigation, plaintiff has failed to contact defense counsel or respond

to defendant’s motion to compel. Defendant’s therefore request dismissal of this action for failure to

comply with the Court’s order. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control

their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate

. . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may th

dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court

order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9 Cir. th

1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. th

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se

th

plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9 Cir. th

1987)(dismissal forfailure to complywith court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

Cir. 1986)(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In this instance, the court addressed defendants’ motion to compel and plaintiff’s failure to

respond as ordered by granting the motion and ordering plaintiff to appear at her deposition. Thus,

dismissal based on plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion is not warranted. The dismissal of an

action as a sanction should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as when a plaintiff abandons

the litigation or when a plaintiff’s conduct is particularly egregious. 

However, based on plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion to dismiss or otherwise contact this

court, it does appear as though plaintiff has abandoned this litigation. If plaintiff has failed to appear

Case 1:04-cv-06435-LJO-DLB Document 27 Filed 06/04/07 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

3

for her deposition as ordered or otherwise contact defense counsel, the Court would entertain a motion

to dismiss on that basis. 

Accordingly, defendants are HEREBY ORDERED to provide a status report to the court and

an amendment to the motion to dismiss, if appropriate. Once defendants status report is received the

court will rule upon the motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06435-LJO-DLB Document 27 Filed 06/04/07 Page 3 of 3