Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01917/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01917-23/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS VILLEGAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01917-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT, 

DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE, AND DIRECTING CLERK’S 

OFFICE TO ENTER JUDGMENT

(Docs. 69 and 70)

Plaintiff Carlos Villegas (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 14, 2010. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendant Neubarth (“Defendant”) for 

violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On November 9, 2015, 

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and on November 10, 2015, the Court ordered 

Plaintiff to file a response within twenty-one days. Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff’s response was 

due on or before December 4, 2015, and he did not comply with the order or otherwise contact the 

Court.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); Local Rule 230(l).

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los 

 

1 On November 23, 2015, the United States Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable. Additionally, the

scheduling order filed on October 9, 2015, was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not notified the Court of any 

change in his address, however, and absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 

182(f).

Case 1:10-cv-01917-SKO Document 71 Filed 12/28/15 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

27

28

2

Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action 

for failure to comply with a pre-trial order, the Court must weigh “(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 sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted). 

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,” 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted), and Court’s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal, as “[i]t is incumbent 

upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants,” 

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The prejudice factor 

weighs against dismissal because the mere pendency of an action does not constitute prejudice, 

and public policy favors disposition on the merits -- which weighs against dismissal. In re PPA, 

460 F.3d at 1228; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43.

Nevertheless, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. In re PPA, 460 

F.3d at 1228-29; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. A monetary sanction has little to no benefit in a 

case in which the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the Court is left with no alternative but to 

dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action, which has been pending since 2010, 

requires Plaintiff’s cooperation in its prosecution. The action cannot simply remain idle on the 

Court’s docket, and the Court is not in a position to expend its scant resources resolving an 

unopposed motion in light of Plaintiff’s demonstrated disinterest in continuing the litigation. Id. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-01917-SKO Document 71 Filed 12/28/15 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

27

28

3

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute; 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot; and the Clerk’s Office shall enter 

judgment. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226; Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 24, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01917-SKO Document 71 Filed 12/28/15 Page 3 of 3