Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01996/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01996-6/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

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

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. ANDERSON, et al., 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:11-cv-01996-LJO-BAM PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, 

WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(Doc. 45)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

)

)

Plaintiff Brady K. Armstrong (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on December 2, 2011. This action proceeds 

Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Anderson and Adams for violations of the First and 

Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

On July 21, 2014, Defendant Adams filed a motion for summary judgment based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff was provided with notification of 

the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 38-44.) Plaintiff did 

not file a timely opposition. Accordingly, on November 3, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 

file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days. (ECF 

No. 45.) On November 25, 2014, the United States Postal Service returned the Court’s order 

sent to Plaintiff as “Undeliverable, Does not live at this address.” 

Case 1:11-cv-01996-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 4
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 January 9, 2015, the Clerk of the Court updated Plaintiff’s address pursuant to a 

Notice of Change of Address filed in another matter, Armstrong v. Hedgpeth, et al., 1:11-cv00761-LJO-GSA (PC). (ECF No. 49.) The Clerk of the Court also re-served the November 3, 

2014 order directing Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment within 

twenty-one days. More than twenty-one days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or 

otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution or for failure to obey 

court orders, 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 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)). Here, the action has been pending more than three years. Plaintiff is obligated to 

comply with the Local Rules and was informed by Defendant Adams of the need to oppose a 

motion for summary judgment. Despite Plaintiff’s duty to comply with all applicable rules and 

despite the previous issuance of the summary judgment notice by Defendant Adams, Plaintiff did 

not file a timely opposition. Nonetheless, the Court permitted Plaintiff an opportunity to comply 

and to prosecute his case by ordering his opposition and extending the time for his compliance. 

Following re-service of the order, the Court’s effort was met with silence from Plaintiff, and 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.

Case 1:11-cv-01996-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 4
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

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 

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 warned Plaintiff that his failure to 

comply with the order directing him to file an opposition would result in “dismissal of this 

action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.” (ECF No. 45.) 

In summary, Plaintiff filed this action but is no longer prosecuting it. More than six 

months have passed since Defendant Adams filed his motion for summary judgment, and 

Plaintiff has not responded, despite being notified of the requirement to respond and the Court’s 

order specifically directing him to respond. (ECF Nos. 38, 45.) 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 is the appropriate sanction and 

HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute 

and for failure to obey a court order. 

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 

Case 1:11-cv-01996-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 4
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

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: February 6, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01996-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 4