Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01762/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01762-5/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

Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff Larry Cruz (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, initiated this action on November 1, 2013. This action proceeds against 

Defendants Dunn, Hiracheta, Silva, and Espinosa for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. 

I. Background

On July 24, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff did not file any response to that motion. As a 

result, on August 25, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 25.) In response to the Court’s order, 

LARRY CRUZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. ESPINOSA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01762-BAM PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, 

WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY A 

COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 26, 27)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-01762-AWI-BAM Document 30 Filed 11/30/15 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 September 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a copy of Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 26.) In the motion, Plaintiff stated that he received the Court’s August 25, 2015 

order but did not receive Defendants’ July 24, 2015 motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 4.) As a 

result, on September 28, 2015, this Court directed Defendants to re-serve their motion for summary 

judgment on Plaintiff. (ECF No. 27.) The Court further ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition to 

Defendant’s motion within twenty-one days of re-service, and warned him that “the failure to comply 

with this order will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.” (Id. at 2.)

On September 28, 2015, Defendants filed an amended certificate of service, certifying that on 

that date they re-served Plaintiff at his address of record via first-class mail with their motion for 

summary judgment. (ECF No. 28.) Defendants further certify that they re-served Plaintiff with notice 

of his obligations in opposing a motion for summary judgment. (Id.). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 

934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 

F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). Pursuant to the Court’s September 28, 2015 order, Plaintiff’s 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment was due on or before October 22, 2015, but he has 

failed to submit any opposition to Defendant’s motion in compliance with that order and Local Rule 

230(l), and has made no response to the order. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff’s opposition is 

over one month overdue.

II. Discussion

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with any 

order of the Court may be grounds for 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 “[i]n 

the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 

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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 

833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

Case 1:13-cv-01762-AWI-BAM Document 30 Filed 11/30/15 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

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Here, the action has been pending for almost two years, and Plaintiff has been served with 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for over a month without any response or opposition.

Plaintiff is obligated to comply with the Local Rules and was informed by Defendants of the need to 

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

and Defendants’ notice, Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition. 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.

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 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Because public policy favors disposition on 

the merits, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 

(9th Cir. 2002). 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.

Finally, the court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s September 28, 2015 order 

requiring Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment expressly warned him that 

he failure to comply with that order would result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure 

to prosecute. (ECF No. 27, p. 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from 

his noncompliance with the Court’s order. Also, 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 

Case 1:13-cv-01762-AWI-BAM Document 30 Filed 11/30/15 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

this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is 

likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case.

In summary, Plaintiff filed this action but is no longer prosecuting it. The Court cannot afford 

to expend resources resolving unopposed dispositive motions in a case which Plaintiff is no longer 

prosecuting. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

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 fourteen (14) 

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.” 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: November 30, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01762-AWI-BAM Document 30 Filed 11/30/15 Page 4 of 4