Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02066/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02066-6/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

FRANK LEE DEARWESTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO CO. SHERIFF’S DEPT., 

et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-2066 MCE DB P

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 October 13, 2015, the court set deadlines for discovery and 

pretrial motions. (ECF No. 33.) All discovery was due to be completed, and all motions to 

compel discovery were due to be filed, by January 29, 2016. In February 2016, the court granted 

plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a motion to compel. (ECF No. 40.) Pursuant to 

that February 25 order, any motion to compel was due to be filed by March 28, 2016. Plaintiff 

did not file a motion to compel prior to that deadline; nor has he filed one since. 

On April 22, 2016, defendants moved for summary judgment. On May 16 and again on 

June 6, 2016, plaintiff moved for an extension of time to conduct discovery. In September, the 

court found plaintiff had failed to show good cause for another extension of the discovery cut-off. 

(ECF No. 52.) Based on the delay in addressing plaintiff’s motions for extension of time, the 

Case 2:13-cv-02066-MCE-DB Document 55 Filed 10/18/16 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

court granted plaintiff one extension of time to respond to defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. (Id.) Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment motion was due on October 6, 

2016.

On September 26, 2016, plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file an opposition to 

defendants' summary judgment motion. On October 3, 2016, the court denied plaintiff’s motion. 

(ECF No. 54.) The court noted that plaintiff had, at that point, had over five months to prepare an 

opposition to the summary judgment motion. To date, plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the 

summary judgment motion. 

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written 

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 

the granting of the motion . . . .” Id. On September 19, 2014, plaintiff was advised of the 

requirements for filing an opposition to a motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be 

deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 16.) In addition, in the court’s orders 

issued on September 6 and October 3, 2016, plaintiff was warned that his failure to file a timely 

opposition to the summary judgment motion “will result in a recommendation that this case be 

dismissed.” (ECF Nos. 52, 54.) 

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 

imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of 

the Court.” Id. In the order filed September 19, 2014, plaintiff was also advised that failure to 

comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Finally, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or 

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move 

to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal 

order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and 

any dismissal not under this rule--except one for lack of 

jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 

19--operates as an adjudication on the merits.

Id.

////

////

Case 2:13-cv-02066-MCE-DB Document 55 Filed 10/18/16 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 

without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to defendants’ summary judgment 

motion in compliance with local rules and this court’s orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

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. The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

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

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the 

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

Dated: October 18, 2016

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/dear2066.nooppo.fr

Case 2:13-cv-02066-MCE-DB Document 55 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 3