Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01669/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01669-12/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

KYREE BREEDLOVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01669-DAD-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY

COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 43)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Kyree Breedlove (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendant Figueroa (“Defendant”) for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed, with prejudice.

I. Background

On April 30, 2021, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that: 

(1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his Eighth Amendment claim; and 

(2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant is barred by the favorable termination 

rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements 

for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/06/21 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

27

28

2

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–

12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 37-1.) Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file his 

opposition on June 8, 2020. (ECF No. 40.) 

Following Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition or otherwise communicate with the 

Court, on August 2, 2021, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why this action 

should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff was 

informed that he could comply with the Court’s order by filing his opposition to Defendant’s 

summary judgment motion. Plaintiff was also warned that if he failed to comply with the Court’s 

order, this matter would be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. (Id.) Plaintiff filed 

a response seeking a further extension of time, which the Court granted on August 16, 2021. 

(ECF Nos. 42, 43.) Plaintiff was again warned that his failure to file an opposition in compliance 

with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to 

prosecute. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff’s opposition was due on or before September 20, 2021. (Id.)

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. Hous. 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 Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 

(1) the public’s interest in expeditions 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 

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/06/21 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

27

28

3

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 nearly three years, and Plaintiff’s response or 

opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is overdue. Plaintiff was warned that 

his failure to comply with the Court’s order to show cause would result in dismissal of this action, 

with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff was permitted multiple extensions of time to file 

his opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and he has failed to comply.

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

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

applicable rules and Defendant’s notice, Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Plaintiff has not 

provided any indication that he is attempting to prepare, or that he intends to submit, an 

opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion, despite being provided multiple 

opportunities and extensions of time to do so. 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 of this action.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, because 

a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 

action. Anderson v. Air W., 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 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 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006).

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 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s August 2, 2021 order to show 

cause and August 16, 2021 order granting a second extension of time expressly warned Plaintiff 

that if he failed to comply with those orders, this matter would be dismissed, with prejudice, for 

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/06/21 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

27

28

4

failure to prosecute. (ECF Nos. 41, p. 2; 43, p. 3.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 

dismissal of this action could result from his noncompliance. 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 the 

preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased 

litigating this case.

In summary, Plaintiff is no longer prosecuting this action, and the Court cannot afford to 

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

prosecuting.

III. Order 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)(1). 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.” The parties are 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: October 6, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 44 Filed 10/06/21 Page 4 of 4