Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02009/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02009-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02009 EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WILLIAM CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-02009 EJD 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 24, 28, 35

Presently before the court are three Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants. See Docket 

Item Nos. 24, 28, 35. Plaintiff William Carter (“Plaintiff”) did not file written opposition to these 

motions, despite being served. Accordingly, the court finds these matters suitable for disposition 

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The associated hearings will be 

vacated and these motions will be granted. 

The lack of opposition raises the issue of whether this action should be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Ferdik 

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). A plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to a 

motion to dismiss as required by this district’s local rules can constitute grounds for dismissal

under Rule 41(b). See Espinosa v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. C 10-04464 SBA, 2011 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 12948, at *3, 2011 WL 334209 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2011); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for 

Case 5:14-cv-02009-EJD Document 42 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02009 EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

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.”). “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).

Having carefully considered the relevant factors, the court concludes they favor the 

dismissal of this action. As to the first factor, “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). 

This factor is particularly compelling under these circumstances since Plaintiff failed to timely 

respond to three motions - two of which were filed over four months ago. It therefore appears to 

the court that Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action.

For the second factor, the court must be able to manage its docket “without being subject 

to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1261 (noting that a litigant’s non-compliance with rules and orders diverts “valuable time that [the 

court] could have devoted to other major and serious criminal and civil cases on its docket.”). The 

third factor also weights strongly in favor of dismissal because Plaintiff has offered no explanation 

for his failure to oppose or respond to the dismissal motions. See Espinosa, 2011 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 12948, at *5. 

As to the fourth factor, the court has considered whether to issue an order to show cause 

prior to dismissal, or to grant the motions to dismiss with leave to amend. But since Plaintiff’s 

non-compliance applies to several motions rather than just one, the court believes it unnecessary to

allow Plaintiff yet another opportunity to respond. Moreover, since most of Plaintiff’s claims 

appear either time-barred or precluded as a matter of law, allowing Plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint would be futile. 

For the fifth factor, though the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits 

often weighs against dismissal, it is overridden here by the cumulative weight of the preceding 

factors. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (affirming dismissal of action where three of the five 

Case 5:14-cv-02009-EJD Document 42 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02009 EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

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

factors weighed in favor of that result).

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ unopposed Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED and 

the amended complaint filed on August 7, 2014, is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND. The hearings scheduled for January 15, 2015, and February 26, 2015, are VACATED. 

Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants and the Clerk shall close this file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02009-EJD Document 42 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 3