Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00470/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00470-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY L. THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHIRLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO OBEY COURT ORDER

(ECF Nos. 41, 47)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Ricky L. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant DeGough (“Defendant”) for deliberate 

indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

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

prejudice.

I. Background

On October 25, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 41.) Together with the motion, 

Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary 

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 48 Filed 01/13/25 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

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. 41-5.) 

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment was therefore due on or before 

November 18, 2024.

On December 4, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one (21) 

days why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff was provided the opportunity to comply with the Court’s 

order by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this 

matter, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. (Id.)

Plaintiff has failed to submit any response to Defendant’s 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 

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

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 48 Filed 01/13/25 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

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

Here, the action has been pending since 2023, and Plaintiff’s response or opposition to 

Defendant’s 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 December 4, 2024 order to 

show cause expressly warned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with that order, this matter 

would be dismissed, without 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 in this action, making monetary sanctions of 

little use. Further, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that 

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 48 Filed 01/13/25 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

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: January 13, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 48 Filed 01/13/25 Page 4 of 4