Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01603/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01603-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

CHRISTOPHER WHITE, ZERITA 

WHITE, G’SHELLE WHITE AND 

DANTRELL STEVENS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1603 JAM DB PS

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the 

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On January 31, 2017, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and noticed that 

motion for hearing before the undersigned on March 3, 2017. (ECF No. 69.) Pursuant to Local 

Rule 230(c) plaintiffs were to file oppositions or statements of non-opposition to defendants’ 

motion “not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed . . . hearing date.” No plaintiff, 

however, filed a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition. 

Accordingly, on February 24, 2017, the undersigned issued an order to show cause in 

writing within fourteen days as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 

(ECF No. 71.) Plaintiffs were cautioned that failure to file a written response to that order could 

result in the undersigned recommending that this matter be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) Nonetheless, 

Case 2:14-cv-01603-JAM-DB Document 72 Filed 03/24/17 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

the time provided plaintiffs has expired and no plaintiff has not responded to the order to show 

cause in any way.

ANALYSIS

The factors to be weighed in determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution 

are as follows: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring 

disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Hernandez v. City of 

El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 

1992); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Dismissal is a harsh penalty that 

should be imposed only in extreme circumstances. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 398; Ferdik, 963 F.2d 

at 1260.

Failure of a party to comply with the any order of the court “may be grounds for 

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or herself 

without an attorney is nonetheless bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local 

Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). A party’s failure to comply with applicable 

rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local 

Rules. Id.

Here, plaintiffs failed to file a statement of opposition or non-opposition to defendants’

motion for summary judgment. The undersigned issued an order to show cause that provided 

plaintiffs with an opportunity to show good cause for their conduct, along with a further 

opportunity to oppose defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs failed to respond to that order in any way. 

The order to show cause specifically warned plaintiffs that the failure to file a written response to 

that order could result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed. 

Plaintiffs’ lack of prosecution of this case renders the imposition of monetary sanctions 

futile. Moreover, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to 

manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant all support the imposition of the 

sanction of dismissal. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against 

Case 2:14-cv-01603-JAM-DB Document 72 Filed 03/24/17 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

dismissal. However, plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute the action in any way makes disposition on 

the merits an impossibility. The undersigned will therefore recommend that this action be 

dismissed due to plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute as well as plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the 

court’s orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) All future hearing dates in this action are vacated; and

2) Defendants’ January 31, 2017 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) is denied 

without prejudice as having been rendered moot.1

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1) Plaintiff’s August 29, 2014 amended complaint (ECF No. 8) be dismissed without 

prejudice; and

2) This action be closed.

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 fourteen 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 fourteen 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: March 23, 2017

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.pro se/white1603.dlop.f&rs

 

1

 In the event the assigned District Judge does not adopt these findings and recommendation, 

defendants may re-notice their motion for summary judgment for hearing before the undersigned. 

Case 2:14-cv-01603-JAM-DB Document 72 Filed 03/24/17 Page 3 of 3