Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01134/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01134-11/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON E. MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JENNINGS, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-1134 TLN DB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 21, 2016, defendants filed a motion to revoke 

plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. When plaintiff did not oppose that motion, the court ordered 

this action dismissed without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) However, in June, plaintiff filed a 

document explaining that he had been hospitalized during part of the period in which he was 

required to respond to defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 36.) In response, on July 11, 2016, the 

court revoked the order dismissing this case, re-opened it, and provided plaintiff a 60-day period 

to file any opposition to the motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. (ECF No. 37.) 

On September 23, 2016, well after the expiration of that 60-day period, the court gave 

plaintiff an additional twenty days to file his opposition, if any, to the motion to revoke in forma 

pauperis status. (ECF No. 40.) The court informed plaintiff that his failure to file an opposition 

“will be deemed as consent to have the: (a) action dismissed for lack of prosecution; and (b) 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 44 Filed 11/15/16 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

action dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with these rules and a court order.” The 

court also informed plaintiff that his failure to file an opposition “shall result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” 

(Id.) 

On September 30, plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 41.) On 

October 6, 2016, the court denied that motion. (ECF No. 42.) Also in the October 6 order, the 

court told plaintiff that if he wanted an extension of the deadline set out in the September 23 

order, he must make a request for an extension of time and show why he could not meet the 

deadline for filing his opposition. To date, plaintiff has neither requested an extension of time nor 

filed an opposition to the motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action 

for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th 

Cir. 1992). In Ferdik, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion when it dismissed a pro se litigant’s civil rights action for failing to file an amended 

complaint. The court explained that, in deciding whether to dismiss a case for a litigant’s failure 

to comply with a court order, the district court must weigh five 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.” Id. at 1260-61 (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. 

of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.3d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)).

In this case, the first two factors as well as the fifth factor cited by the court in Ferdik

strongly support dismissal of this action. This case has been pending before the court since June 

5, 2013, and defendants filed their motion to revoke in forma pauperis status over nine months 

ago. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and the Local Rules strongly suggests that 

further time spent by the court on this case will consume scarce judicial resources in addressing 

litigation which plaintiff has demonstrated he has no intention to diligently pursue. Notably, the 

court has repeatedly warned plaintiff that his failure to file his opposition would result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed. In short, plaintiff’s failure to follow the court’s 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 44 Filed 11/15/16 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

orders has made it impossible for this civil action to be adjudicated by the court. 

Therefore,Dated: November 14, 2016

the undersigned is left with no choice but to recommend dismissal of this action.

The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose defendants’ motion prevents the defendants from addressing 

plaintiff’s claims and unnecessarily delays resolution of this action thereby forcing defendants to 

incur additional time and expense. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(“When considering prejudice to the defendant, ‘the failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by 

itself to justify dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant 

from the failure .... The law presumes injury from unreasonable delay.’”) (quoting Anderson v. 

Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)).

Finally, the fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, weighs 

against dismissal of this action. However, for the reasons set forth above, the first, second, third, 

and fifth factors support dismissal. Under the circumstances of this case, those factors outweigh 

the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

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 seven 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. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served 

and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

Dated: November 14, 2016

DLB:9

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 44 Filed 11/15/16 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

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/morr1134.41

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 44 Filed 11/15/16 Page 4 of 4