Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00249/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00249-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLAN FLETCHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLENDENIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO OBEY COURT ORDERS

(ECF Nos. 45, 47)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Allan Fletcher (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to 

the California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are considered civil detainees and are 

not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 

1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against 

Defendants Clendenin and Price (“Defendants”) for failure to treat Plaintiff under the Fourteenth 

Amendment Due Process Clause due to their official policy.

For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice.

I. Background

On August 26, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, together with a 

request to seal a declaration in support of the motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 43, 44.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 48 Filed 12/02/24 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

2

In the Court’s second informational order, Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements 

for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–

12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment 

and request to seal were therefore due on or before September 20, 2024. (ECF No. 45.)

On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to respond to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 46.) The Court granted the request, in 

part, and directed Plaintiff to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

within thirty days. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s 

order would result in dismissal of this matter, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to 

oppose the motion for summary judgment and failure to prosecute. (Id.)

Plaintiff has failed to submit any response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

and has not otherwise communicated with the Court.

II. Discussion

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 

any order of the Court may be grounds for 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 “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 

court may 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 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 

amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 

(1) the public’s interest in expeditions 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 

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 48 Filed 12/02/24 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

3

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988).

Here, the action has been pending since 2022, and Plaintiff’s response or opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is overdue. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to 

comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure 

to prosecute. Plaintiff has failed to comply.

 Plaintiff is obligated to comply with the Local Rules and was informed by the Court of 

the need to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Despite Plaintiff’s duty to comply with all 

applicable rules and the Court’s notice, Plaintiff did not file an opposition. The Court cannot 

effectively manage its docket if a party ceases litigating the case. Thus, both the first and second 

factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, because 

a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 

action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Because public policy favors 

disposition on the merits, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan v. 

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party 

whose responsibility is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct 

impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the Court’s order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives requirement.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s October 9, 2024 order 

granting in part Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time expressly warned Plaintiff that if he 

failed to comply with that order, this matter would be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

prosecute. (ECF No. 47.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal of this action could 

result from his noncompliance. At this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the 

Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from 

further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 48 Filed 12/02/24 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

4

in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use. Further, the preclusion of evidence or 

witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating this case.

In summary, Plaintiff is no longer prosecuting this action, and the Court cannot afford to 

expend resources resolving an unopposed dispositive motion in a case which Plaintiff is no longer 

prosecuting.

III. Recommendation

Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY 

RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and for 

failure to obey court orders.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 

fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 

number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 

limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00249-JLT-BAM Document 48 Filed 12/02/24 Page 4 of 4