Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00461/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00461-8/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN CLARK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. KOKOR, et al., 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:12-cv-00461-LJO-BAM PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 

DENIAL OF PENDING MOTIONS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF Nos. 17, 28, 30)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

)

)

)

Plaintiff Stephen Clark (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 27, 2012. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Ugwueze and Kokor for deliberate indifference to 

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

On April 25, 2014, Defendants Ugwueze and Kokor filed a motion to dismiss for failure 

to state a claim and for qualified immunity. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the 

motion. Accordingly, on November 7, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss within twenty-one days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to 

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

to prosecute. (ECF No. 25.) 

Case 1:12-cv-00461-LJO-BAM Document 31 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 5
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

On December 1, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file his 

response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff failed to file a timely

opposition. Therefore, on January 13, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within 

twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

prosecute. (ECF No. 28.)

On February 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, along with a 

notice of change of address. In his response, Plaintiff indicated that he was forced to relocate his 

family for safety reasons and requested an extension of time to file his opposition. (ECF No. 

29.) 

On February 4, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day (30) extension of time to file 

his opposition to the motion to dismiss, which was served on Plaintiff at the new address for 

service he provided on February 3, 2015. The Court also discharged the order to show cause, but 

cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the order, the action may be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 30.) On February 26, 2015, the 

Court’s order was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable, unable to 

forward. 

Despite multiple opportunities, Plaintiff has failed to file any opposition to the motion to 

dismiss, which has been pending for nearly one year. Plaintiff has been warned on several 

occasions that failure to respond to the motion to dismiss would result in dismissal of this action 

for failure to prosecute. 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 

required to weigh several 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 the defendants; (4) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citation 

omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); In re 

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

Case 1:12-cv-00461-LJO-BAM Document 31 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 5
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

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not 

conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226

(citation omitted). 

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” 

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th 

Cir. 1999)). This action has been pending for almost three years. Defendants attempted to move 

this case towards disposition by filing a motion to dismiss in April 2014. Despite Plaintiff’s duty 

to comply with all applicable Local Rules, Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. After the motion had been pending for more than seven months 

without any opposition, the Court permitted Plaintiff an opportunity to prosecute his case by 

ordering his opposition. Instead of filing an opposition, Plaintiff requested additional time to 

oppose the motion. The Court granted the motion, but Plaintiff again failed to file a timely 

opposition. As a further effort to secure Plaintiff’s compliance and allow him the opportunity to 

prosecute his case, the Court issued an order to show cause approximately nine months after 

Defendants moved to dismiss this action. Again, Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Instead, on 

February 3, 2015, Plaintiff requested a further extension of time to file his opposition. The Court 

granted the requested extension of time and discharged the order to show cause. Although 

served on Plaintiff’s last known address, the Court’s order was returned as undeliverable, unable 

to forward. Since February 3, 2015, Plaintiff has made no effort to contact the Court, and the 

motion to dismiss has now been pending for approximately eleven months. The Court 

recognizes that Plaintiff did not receive the Court’s recent order granting him an extension of 

time to file his opposition, but Plaintiff’s failure to provide a valid address demonstrates his 

unwillingness to prosecute this action in a timely manner. Indeed, the Court’s efforts to obtain a 

response from Plaintiff have been repeatedly met with silence on the merits of his claims. The 

Court cannot effectively manage its docket if a party ceases litigating the case and moving it 

towards resolution. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

With regard to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial 

in and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). However, “delay 

Case 1:12-cv-00461-LJO-BAM Document 31 Filed 03/25/15 Page 3 of 5
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

inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” 

Id. In this instance, it is Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and to comply with the Local 

Rules and court orders that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of 

dismissal.

Because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor usually weighs against 

dismissal. Id. at 643. However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it 

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 PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228 (internal quotation omitted). 

Finally, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, 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 in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given this stage of the 

proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that 

Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case. Further, the Court repeatedly warned Plaintiff that his 

failure to file an opposition would result in “dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to 

prosecute.” (ECF Nos. 25, 28.) 

In summary, Plaintiff filed this action but is no longer prosecuting it. Nearly one year has

passed since Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff has not responded, despite 

being notified of the requirement to respond and the Court’s orders specifically directing him to 

respond. (ECF Nos. 25, 28.) The Court cannot afford to expend resources resolving unopposed 

dispositive motions in a case a plaintiff is no longer prosecuting. Accordingly, the Court finds 

that dismissal, without prejudice as Plaintiff failed to receive the Court’s February 4, 2015 order, 

is the appropriate sanction. The Court also finds that all pending motions should be denied 

without prejudice. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute; and 

2. All pending motions be denied without prejudice. 

Case 1:12-cv-00461-LJO-BAM Document 31 Filed 03/25/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

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)(l). Within 

thirty (30) 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.” 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, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00461-LJO-BAM Document 31 Filed 03/25/15 Page 5 of 5