Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01908/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01908-14/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

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

Plaintiff Oscar Marshall, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 16, 2011. This case is set for jury trial 

on November 8, 2016, on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants F. Moreno and R. Medina for excessive 

force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Plaintiff’s pretrial statement was due on or before July 15, 2016, but he failed to file one. The 

Court notified Plaintiff of his failure to comply on August 9, 2016, and directed him to file a pretrial 

statement within seven days. Over seven days have passed and he has not filed a pretrial statement or 

otherwise responded to the Court’s orders.

I. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

On December 10, 2015, the Court issued a scheduling order which set the matter for jury trial 

on June 21, 2016. Following a telephonic trial setting conference on May 12, 2016, the matter was set 

for jury trial on November 8, 2016. The Court required Plaintiff to file a pretrial statement on or 

OSCAR MARSHALL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01908 LJO DLB PC

ORDER VACATING TRIAL DATES, 

DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE

[Docs. 63, 64, 67)

Case 1:11-cv-01908-LJO-DLB Document 68 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 4
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

before July 15, 2016. Plaintiff failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the order. On August 9, 

2016, Plaintiff was notified of his failure to comply and ordered to file a pretrial statement within 

seven days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond to the order would result in sanctions 

including dismissal of this action, with prejudice. More than seven days have passed and Plaintiff has 

not filed a response to the order. 

The failure to obey a scheduling order is grounds for the imposition of sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(f)(1)(C). The second scheduling order contained notice to Plaintiff that the failure to file a 

pretrial statement in compliance with the order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including 

dismissal. (Doc. 53, p. 5, lns. 4-6.) Further, in the order to file pretrial statement, the Court warned 

Plaintiff that the failure to respond to the order could result in sanctions including dismissal. (Doc. 

67.)

A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered. Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties 

are required to exercise due diligence, Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 

1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609), and the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to 

file a pretrial statement and failure to respond to the order to file pretrial statement warrant the 

imposition of sanctions. 

II. DISMISSAL AS A SANCTION

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 Angeles 

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

comply with a pretrial 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) (quotation marks and citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do 

and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 

(citation omitted).

Case 1:11-cv-01908-LJO-DLB Document 68 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 4
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

This case has been pending since 2011, and it is set for jury trial in just over two months. The 

expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of 

dismissal. Id. at 1227. This action has been pending for five years, and Plaintiff had ample time to 

begin trial preparation and comply with the scheduling order. Id. The Court has an extremely heavy 

caseload, and when litigants disregard orders of the court and deadlines, the Court’s ability to manage 

its docket and guide cases toward resolution is significantly compromised. Id.

As for the risk of prejudice, while the mere pendency of an action does not constitute 

prejudice, the impairment of Defendants’ ability to proceed to trial is prejudicial. Id. at 1227-28 

(quotation marks omitted). 

Regarding the fourth factor, while public policy favors disposition on the merits and therefore 

weighs against dismissal, it is Plaintiff’s own conduct which is at issue here and which has stalled the 

case. Id. at 1228. 

Finally, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. A monetary sanction has 

little to no benefit in a case in which Plaintiff has ceased responding to the Court’s orders. 

Discovery is closed and the deadline for filing pretrial motions has passed, rendering 

unavailable the Court’s ability to impose any limitations on Plaintiff in those areas as a sanction. 

Lastly, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not an available sanction given that Plaintiff failed to 

identify any exhibits or provide a witness list via a pretrial statement. See Local Rule 281(b)(10),(11). 

In conclusion, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted given the procedural posture of this 

case, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pretrial scheduling order, and the unavailability of 

satisfactory alternative sanctions. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228-29. 

ORDER

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The telephonic trial confirmation hearing set for August 31, 2016, at 8:30 a.m., jury 

trial set for November 8, 2016, at 8:30 a.m., and all other pending deadlines are VACATED;

2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a pretrial 

statement in compliance with the scheduling order; and

Case 1:11-cv-01908-LJO-DLB Document 68 Filed 08/24/16 Page 3 of 4
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. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01908-LJO-DLB Document 68 Filed 08/24/16 Page 4 of 4