Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08124/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08124-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kevin Halbig, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Navajo County, a political subdivision of 

Arizona, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV09-8124 -PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 On November 5, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Doc. 55. Pro se Plaintiff has filed no response, and the time for doing so has expired. 

See LRCiv. 56.1(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). On March 1, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff 

to file a response by March 25, 2011. Doc. 57. Plaintiff has not complied.1

 

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part: 

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported 

as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon 

the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s 

pleading, but the adverse party’s response . . . must set forth 

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If 

the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if 

appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (emphasis added); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-

23 (1986) (holding that summary judgment is appropriate against a party who “fails to 

 

1 Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i), “such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion.”

Case 3:09-cv-08124-DGC Document 58 Filed 04/15/11 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s 

case”); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) 

(“When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do 

more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”). 

 Defendants’ arguments as to qualified immunity, municipal vicarious liability, and 

Plaintiff’s failure to show a material factual dispute as to his state law claims are 

persuasive in the absence of Plaintiff’s opposition. Defendants’ other arguments are also 

colorable. The Court will grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the 

undisputed evidence offered in support of the motion “show[s] that there is no genuine 

issue as to any material fact and that [Defendants are] entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. 

 In the alternative, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining claims against 

Defendants for failure to comply with the Court’s order and for lack of prosecution. The 

Ninth Circuit has developed “a five-part ‘test’ to determine whether a dismissal sanction 

is just: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation; (2) the court’s 

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 

drastic sanctions.’” Valley Eng’rs, Inc. v. Electric Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (quoting Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also 

Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). “[W]here a court order is 

violated, factors 1 and 2 support sanctions and 4 cuts against case dispositive sanctions, 

so 3 and 5 . . . are decisive.” Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057. Factor 5 “involves 

consideration of three subparts: whether the court explicitly discussed alternative 

sanctions, whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the 

possibility of dismissal.” Id. 

 Considering this five-factor test, the Court concludes that dismissal is an 

appropriate sanction in this case. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

Case 3:09-cv-08124-DGC Document 58 Filed 04/15/11 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket require action when a plaintiff 

refuses to prosecute a case. In addition, Defendants will be subject to prejudice if a 

sanction of dismissal is not imposed. Defendants are unable to move forward with their 

defense of this case when Plaintiff refuses to respond to their motion and the Court’s 

order. Finally, the Court has considered less drastic sanctions, but none is apparent. 

Plaintiff has not responded to the motion for summary judgment and has refused to 

comply with the Court’s order. The Court specifically stated the actions Plaintiff must 

take to defend against the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 57), Plaintiff failed to 

comply, the Court had advised the parties that failure to respond to a motion within 

prescribed time periods will be deemed a consent to granting the motion (Doc. 28 at 4:15-

18), and the motion has been pending for five months. The Court concludes that the 

appropriate resolution of this problem is to dismiss Plaintiff’s case. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 55) is granted as stated 

above. 

2. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 15th day of April, 2011. 

Case 3:09-cv-08124-DGC Document 58 Filed 04/15/11 Page 3 of 3