Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01867/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01867-8/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

ADLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01867-DAD-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A 

COURT ORDER

(Docs. 34, 36, 37)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiff Brent Adler, a former state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 18, 2013. This 

action for damages is proceeding against Defendants Gonzalez, Holland, Steadman, Bryant, 

Zanchi, Lundy, and Schuyler for violating Plaintiff’s right to adequate outdoor exercise under the 

Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution while he was incarcerated at California 

Correctional Institution in Tehachapi between 2008 and 2011.

On March 30, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 34.) On 

March 31, 2016, the Second Informational Order issued informing Plaintiff of the requirements to 

oppose a motion for summary judgment and that he must file an opposition or statement of nonopposition within twenty-one days. (Doc. 36.) 

More than a month passed without Plaintiff having filed an opposition, a statement of nonopposition, or any response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or to this Court's order

of March 31, 2016. Accordingly, on May 5, 2016, Plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or 

Case 1:13-cv-01867-DAD-SKO Document 38 Filed 06/20/16 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

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within twenty-one 

days. (Doc. 37.) More than a month has now lapsed and Plaintiff has not complied with the May 

5, 2016 order. 

Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the 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 "in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, 

where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case." Thompson v. Housing 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); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised 

of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for 

failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 

order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider 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 alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; 

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 

46 F.3d at 53.

The Court finds that the public's interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 

Court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 

prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises 

from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 

Case 1:13-cv-01867-DAD-SKO Document 38 Filed 06/20/16 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

F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, 

a Court's warning to a party that his failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal 

satisfies the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court's order requiring Plaintiff to file 

an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment 

expressly stated in bold that "Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order will 

result in recommendation that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute

and for failure to obey a court order." (Doc. 37.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 

dismissal may result from his noncompliance with the Court's order.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed with 

prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court's order of May 5, 2016, (Doc. 37). 

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

twenty-one (21) 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.” The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 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: June 19, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01867-DAD-SKO Document 38 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 3