Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01005/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01005-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZAVIER PIGUES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1005 DB P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 13, 2016, defendant Solano County Jail filed a motion 

for summary judgment. On July 22, 2016, defendants Cristin and Lew filed a motion for 

summary judgment. Because plaintiff has failed to oppose those motions, the court will 

recommend dismissal of this action.

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), plaintiff’s opposition to the motions was due within 21 

days. In the court’s January 21, 2016 order, plaintiff was advised of the applicability of Local 

Rule 230(l) and that his failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion “may be deemed a 

waiver of opposition to the motion.” (ECF No. 14 at 3.) 

On September 23, 2016, well after the expiration of the 21-day periods to file oppositions 

to defendants’ motions, the court noted plaintiff’s failure to file oppositions or otherwise respond 

to defendants’ motions and ordered plaintiff to file oppositions within thirty days. (ECF No. 27.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01005-JAM-DB Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to file oppositions would be deemed consent to have this 

action dismissed and would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. Plaintiff has 

not filed oppositions to the summary judgment motions or otherwise responded to the court’s 

September 23, 2016 order. 

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

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

Cir. 1992). In Ferdik, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion when it dismissed a pro se litigant’s civil rights action for failing to file an amended 

complaint. The court explained that, in deciding whether to dismiss a case for a litigant’s failure 

to comply with a court order, the district court must weigh five 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 alternatives.” Id. at 1260-61 (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. 

of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.3d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)).

In this case, the first two factors as well as the fifth factor cited by the court in Ferdik

strongly support dismissal of this action. This case has been pending before the court since May 

8, 2015, and defendants filed their motions for summary judgment months ago. Plaintiff’s 

repeated failure to comply with court orders and the Local Rules strongly suggests that further 

time spent by the court on this case will consume scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation 

which plaintiff has demonstrated he has no intention to diligently pursue. Notably, the court has 

warned plaintiff that his failure to file his opposition would result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed. In short, plaintiff’s failure to follow the court’s orders has made it 

impossible for this civil action to be adjudicated by the court. Therefore, the undersigned

recommends dismissal of this action.

The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose defendants’ motion unnecessarily delays resolution of this action 

thereby forcing defendants to incur additional time and expense. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 

1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (“When considering prejudice to the defendant, ‘the failure to prosecute 

Case 2:15-cv-01005-JAM-DB Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 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

3

diligently is sufficient by itself to justify dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual 

prejudice to the defendant from the failure .... The law presumes injury from unreasonable 

delay.’”) (quoting Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)).

Finally, the fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, weighs 

against dismissal of this action. However, for the reasons set forth above, the first, second, third, 

and fifth factors support dismissal. Under the circumstances of this case, those factors outweigh 

the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.

Because all parties have not filed forms consenting to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district judge to this action; and 

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge to 

be assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 16, 2016

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/Pigu1005.41

 

Case 2:15-cv-01005-JAM-DB Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 3