Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-05636/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-05636-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

ALLEN KELTNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF LAKE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05636-NJV

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On August 13, 2015, the court entered a Stipulation and Order (Doc. 21), granting the 

parties‟ request for a modified briefing schedule and to move the hearing on the Motion to 

Dismiss to November 3, 2015. The stipulated briefing schedule required that Plaintiff file his 

response to the Motion to Dismiss on or before August 31, 2015. Plaintiff did not file a response. 

On September 8, 2015, Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiff‟s Failure to Oppose the Motion to 

Dismiss (Doc. 22), in which Defendants propose the court take Plaintiff‟s failure to file an 

opposition to the Motion as a concession. As of this date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion 

to Dismiss, or to Defendants‟ suggestion that Plaintiff has conceded the motion.

On October 1, 2015, the court issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 23), in which the court 

noted that “[i]t appears then that Plaintiff does indeed concede the Motion, or has otherwise 

abandoned this case,” and ordered that Plaintiff, on or before October 9, 2015, show cause as to 

why the court should not dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff was warned that “his 

failure to respond to this order will result in the dismissal of this action.” Plaintiff has again failed 

to respond.

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action 

Case 1:14-cv-05636-NJV Document 25 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th 

Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply 

with a court order, the Court must weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 

642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61).

The court finds that these factors support dismissal. First, “[t]he public‟s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 

F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Second, the court‟s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of 

dismissal. This case was filed in December of 2014, and through the parties‟ stipulations the 

Motion to Dismiss was filed in July of 2015. Almost three months have passed and Plaintiff has 

made no effort to respond. The court cannot manage its docket when the prosecuting party will 

not participate. Third, the risk of prejudice to the defendants generally requires that “a defendant . 

. . establish that plaintiff‟s actions impaired defendant‟s ability to proceed to trial or threatened to 

interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. However, “a 

presumption of prejudice arises from a plaintiff‟s unexplained failure to prosecute.” Lamina v. 

Syringa Gen. Hosp., 279 F.3d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has not overcome this 

presumption and, thus, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. Fourth, there appears no available 

less drastic alternative. Plaintiff is represented by counsel. Counsel stipulated to an extended 

briefing schedule. After Plaintiff missed the deadline to respond, Defendants filed a Reply 

pointing to Plaintiff‟s failure and suggesting that Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion to Dismiss. 

At that time, Plaintiff could have filed a response to Defendants‟ assertion. The court then issued 

the Show Cause Order, which Plaintiff ignored, despite the warning that failure to respond would 

result in the court‟s order of dismissal. The court finds that there is no available less drastic 

alternative and this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. The fifth factor weighs against dismissal, 

because “[p]ublic policy favors disposition of cases on the merits.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643.

Case 1:14-cv-05636-NJV Document 25 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal, . . . or where at least 

three factors „strongly‟ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (quoting Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263). Here, four out of five factors support dismissal.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute.

The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.

The matter is referred to the court‟s standing committee on professional conduct.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2015

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:14-cv-05636-NJV Document 25 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 3