Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00504/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00504-11/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

RAPHAEL GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

WRIGHT,

Defendant.

No. 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Doc. 48

Plaintiff Raphael Graham 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 against defendant 

Wright for alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment by conducting a strip search of the 

plaintiff with an activated body camera, exposing plaintiff’s genitals on camera, and for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The matter was referred to a United States 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 15, 2024, defendant filed a notice of request to seal documents pursuant to Local 

Rule 141, together with a redacted motion for summary judgment arguing that defendant did not 

violate plaintiff’s First or Fourth Amendment rights and that defendant is entitled to qualified 

immunity. Docs. 41, 42. Following plaintiff’s failure to file a response to the motion for 

summary judgment or the request to seal, on July 12, 2024, the Court ordered plaintiff to show 

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

Case 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 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

2

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Doc. 45. On August 1, 2024, the order to show cause was 

returned as “Undeliverable, Parole, RTS.”1 See Docket. Plaintiff’s notice of change of address 

was therefore due on or before October 3, 2024. Local Rule 183(b). Plaintiff did not file a notice 

of change of address or otherwise communicate with the Court. See Docket.

On October 8, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending dismissal of this action, with prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute,

failure to oppose the motion for summary judgment, and failure to file a notice of change of 

address, and for plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order requiring plaintiff to oppose the motion 

for summary judgment or to file a statement of non-opposition. Doc. 48. The findings and 

recommendations notified plaintiff that any objections were to be filed within 14 days of service. 

Id. at 5. On October 18, 2024, the findings and recommendations served on Plaintiff’s address of 

record were returned as “Undeliverable, Paroled.”2 See Docket. No objections have been filed, 

and the deadline to do so has passed. To date, plaintiff has not otherwise communicated with the 

Court or updated his address.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court adopts the findings 

and recommendations in part.

Despite the language of Local Rule 230(l), dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute 

because of a party’s failure to oppose a motion for summary judgment would be improper. 

“[U]nder the Federal Rules, a motion for summary judgment may not be granted based on a 

failure to file an opposition to the motion, regardless of any local rule that suggests the contrary.” 

Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Henry v. Gill Inds., Inc., 

1 Though the order to show cause was returned to the court as undeliverable, it was properly 

served on plaintiff. See Local Rule 182(f) (“Each appearing attorney and pro se party is under a 

continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or 

telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at 

the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.”) 

2 As with the order to show cause, though the findings and recommendations were returned to the 

court as undeliverable, they were properly served on plaintiff pursuant to Local Rule 182(f). 

Case 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 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

3

983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993) (“A local rule that requires the entry of summary judgment 

simply because no papers opposing the motion are filed or served, and without regard to whether 

genuine issues of material fact exist, would be inconsistent with Rule [of Civil Procedure] 56, 

hence impermissible under Rule 83.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Advisory Committee Notes (2010)

(“[S]ummary judgment cannot be granted by default even if there is a complete failure to respond 

to the motion.”).

Here, the findings and recommendations do not recommend granting the motion for 

summary judgment for failure to oppose the motion, but rather recommend dismissing for failure 

to prosecute for failing file an opposition to the motion as required by Local Rule 230(l) and for 

plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s orders that he oppose the motion for summary 

judgment. Doc. 45. Taking account of the Ninth Circuit’s clear directive that summary judgment 

cannot be granted based on failure to oppose the motion for summary judgment, “[t]he practical 

effect” of dismissing for failure to comply with a local rule requiring plaintiff to file an opposition

would be “to grant summary judgment as a sanction” for violating a local rule, which the Ninth 

Circuit has expressly disavowed. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir. 1995). The same 

is true of ordering the plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion and then dismissing the case 

with prejudice for his failure to do so. Thus, the Court declines to adopt the findings and 

recommendations insofar as they recommend dismissing this case with prejudice for plaintiff’s 

failure to oppose the motion for summary judgment and for plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s 

order requiring plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the summary 

judgment motion.

However, the findings and recommendations also recommend dismissal of this action 

based on plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address with the Court within 63 days of mail 

addressed to him being returned to the Court as undeliverable. See Local Rule 183(b). The Ninth 

Circuit has held that, prior to dismissing a case as a sanction for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, 

a court must consider “(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.” 

Case 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 3 of 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

4

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). 

It appears the magistrate judge considered some of the Henderson factors in relation to 

plaintiff’s failure to update his address, but overarchingly the findings and recommendations 

analyzed the Henderson factors pursuant to the plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion and failure 

to obey the court order. Thus, the Court has independently considered the Henderson factors and 

finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal for plaintiff’s failure to update the Court of his address.

The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage 

its docket weigh in favor of dismissal because the court cannot effectively manage its docket, nor 

can the litigation be expeditiously resolved, if plaintiff fails to update his address with the Court. 

See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”). The Court need not expend its 

resources analyzing the merits of defendant’s motion for summary judgment when doing so 

would result in an order that would be undeliverable to plaintiff. Furthermore, the case could not 

progress from there, regardless of the outcome of the order, given the Court’s inability to 

communicate with plaintiff. As to the third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendant also 

weighs in favor of dismissal, given that unreasonable delay in a case gives rise to a presumption 

of injury to the defendant. See, e.g., Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

While the fourth consideration, that public policy favors disposition of cases on their 

merits, generally weighs against dismissal, here it 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.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 

1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 

Finally, there is little else available to the court that would constitute a satisfactory lesser 

sanction given the court’s inability to communicate with plaintiff. See, e.g., Gaston v. Marean, 

2020 WL 4059200, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2020) (“given the Court’s apparent inability to 

communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to address 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and his failure to apprise the Court of his current 

address”).

Case 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 4 of 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

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 8, 2024, Doc. 48, are adopted in 

part;

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute as set 

forth in this order; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 5 of 5