Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01086/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01086-4/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

MAURICE BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1086 MCE DAD P 

vs.

M. PENNER, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On January 17, 2006, defendants moved to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule

12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion despite the

requirements of this court’s November 10, 2005 order and Local Rule 78-230(m). By order

signed April 6, 2006, plaintiff was granted eighteen days, plus three days for mail service of the

order, to show good cause for his failure to respond to defendants’ motion. Plaintiff was

cautioned that failure to respond timely would result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed with prejudice. The twenty-one day period has expired, and plaintiff has not shown

good cause or otherwise responded to the April 6, 2006 order.

The Local Rules of Practice provide that

[f]ailure of . . . a party to comply with these Rules, with the Federal

Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, or with any order of the

Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 05/04/06 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

2

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent

power of the Court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any

action, entry of default, finding of contempt, imposition of

monetary sanctions or attorney’s fees and costs, and other lesser

sanctions. 

Local Rule 11-110. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing for involuntary dismissal due to the

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any

order of court).

The factors to be weighed in determining whether to dismiss an action for failure

to comply with court orders are identical to the factors to be considered when deciding whether

to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.

1992). The 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. 

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). As a general rule, dismissal is a harsh

penalty that should be reserved for extreme circumstances. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. 

In the present case, plaintiff has violated the court’s November 10, 2005 order

requiring the parties to brief all motions to dismiss, and he has failed to respond to the court’s

order signed April 6, 2006, requiring him to show cause for his failure to respond to defendants’

motion. Plaintiff has not filed any document in this action since August 15, 2005, when he

submitted the documents required for service of his complaint on defendants Penner and Turella.

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss and his failure to

respond to the court’s order to show cause constitute multiple violations of applicable rules and

court orders as well as failure to prosecute this action. Plaintiff’s violations warrant the

imposition of sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 11-110. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis

and cannot pay a monetary sanction. Moreover, in light of plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the

action, dismissal appears to be the only appropriate sanction. The public interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 05/04/06 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

3

defendants all support the sanction of dismissal. While the public policy favoring disposition on

the merits counsels against the dismissal of any action, the plaintiff in this case has forfeited the

benefit of that policy by failing to prosecute his case. The action should be dismissed with

prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 and

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and

applicable rules and his failure to prosecute this action; and

2. Defendants’ January 17, 2006 motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice

as moot.

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 fifteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: May 4, 2006.

DAD:13

brow1086.fsc

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 05/04/06 Page 3 of 3