Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00278/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00278-5/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD SPENCE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0278 DFL DAD P

vs.

LIEUTENANT D. DAVEY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On September 25, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to nonenumerated Rule 12(b) and, as to defendant Abamonga, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Although the motion was properly served on plaintiff at his current

address of record, plaintiff has not opposed the motion or filed a statement of non-opposition.

The Local Rules of Practice provide that “[f]ailure of the responding party to file

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

the granting of the motion.” Local Rule 78-230(m). By the order filed in this action on May 30,

2006, plaintiff was advised that all motions to dismiss and all motions pursuant to Rule 12 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be briefed pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m). (Order filed

May 30, 2006, at 3.) By the same order, the pro se plaintiff was provided with detailed

information concerning the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

Case 2:06-cv-00278-GEB-DAD Document 23 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 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

 Defendants do not contend that plaintiff failed to exhaust his state law claims of 1

retaliatory cell search (Claim Two) and excessive force during a cell extraction (Claim Four) or

his federal claims of cruel and unusual punishment during a cell extraction (Claim Three),

excessive force during a cell extraction (Claim Four), and indifference to the risk of harm from a

cell extraction (Claim Seven). The proper remedy is dismissal of the unexhausted claims. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (if the court concludes that the prisoner has not

exhausted administrative remedies on any claim, “the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim

without prejudice”).

2

administrative remedies made by defendants pursuant to non-enumerated Rule 12(b). (Id. at 3-

4.) Plaintiff was cautioned that if he does not serve and file a written opposition to such a

motion, the court may consider the failure to act as a waiver of opposition to the defendants’

motion. (Id. at 4.)

On July 26, 2006, plaintiff notified the court of his release from confinement. 

Since that date, plaintiff has been served with (1) defendants’ request for extension of time filed

August 7, 2006; (2) the court’s August 14, 2006 order #18 granting defendants’ request; (3) the

court’s August 14, 2006 order #19 denying the requests for extension of time or for a stay filed

by plaintiff while he was confined in a county jail prior to his release; and (4) defendants’ motion

to dismiss. Plaintiff has filed no document in this action since July 26, 2006, despite the

requirements of Local Rule 78-230(m) and the court’s May 30, 2006 order. Under these

circumstances, plaintiff’s failure to oppose defendants’ motion should be deemed a waiver of

opposition to the granting of the motion.

In their motion, defendants contend that this action should be dismissed because

plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to Claims One and

Three of his four state law claims and Claims One, Two, and Five of his seven federal claims. 

Defendants also contend that Claim Six of the federal claims should be dismissed because the

complaint fails to state a cause of action against defendant Abamonga. The court has reviewed

defendants’ motion and finds that, in the absence of any evidence or argument to the contrary, six

of plaintiff’s eleven claims should be dismissed.1

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00278-GEB-DAD Document 23 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 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

3

The undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s May 30,

2006 order, has failed to comply with Local Rule 78-230(m), and has failed to prosecute this

action. Local Rule 11-110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or 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 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” The factors to

be weighed in determining whether to dismiss for failure to obey court orders are identical to the

factors to be considered when deciding whether to dismiss for lack of prosecution. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Those factors are as follows: (1) the public

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 on the merits; and

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir.

1988) (per curiam). Dismissal is a harsh penalty that should be imposed only in extreme

circumstances. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. 

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

manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants all support the sanction of

dismissal of this case for failure to obey a court order, failure to comply with Local Rule 78-

230(m), and failure to prosecute. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits

counsels against dismissal. However, plaintiff’s complete lack of prosecution since July 26,

2006, together with his failure to comply with Local Rule 78-230(m) and the court’s May 30,

2006 order, justifies a recommendation of dismissal. No lesser sanction would serve any

purpose. Accordingly, defendants’ motion should be granted as to six of plaintiff’s claims, and

all remaining claims should be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 as a sanction for failure

to prosecute this action, failure to obey a court order, and failure to comply with Local Rule 78-

230(m).

Plaintiff is reminded that unincarcerated litigants are required to file documents

on or before the date on which the document is due. 

Case 2:06-cv-00278-GEB-DAD Document 23 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ September 25, 2006 motion to dismiss certain claims be granted;

2. Plaintiff’s state law Claims One and Three and federal Claims One, Two, and

Five be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies

before filing suit;

3. Plaintiff’s federal Claim Six be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action

against defendant Abamonga; and

4. Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Local

Rule 11-110 as a sanction for failure to prosecute this action, failure to obey a court order, and

failure to comply with Local Rule 78-230(m).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten 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. A document containing objections

should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply

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

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may, under certain

circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 12, 2006.

DAD:13

spen0278.46d

Case 2:06-cv-00278-GEB-DAD Document 23 Filed 12/12/06 Page 4 of 4