Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00189/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00189-13/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN A. MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-0189 WBS DAD P

vs.

A. MASURET, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on a claim against defendant Hamad raised in

plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed with the court on July 26, 2010. (Doc. No. 10.) 

On September 9, 2011, counsel on behalf of defendant Hamad filed a motion for

summary judgment (Doc. No. 33). In response, on October 14, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) to postpone consideration of the motion for summary judgment

(Doc. No. 35). Defendant opposed that motion (Doc. No. 39). On April 4, 2012, this court

denied plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion. (Doc. No. 40.) On April 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a request

for reconsideration of the order denying his Rule 56(d) request (Doc. No. 41), and on April 27,

2012, plaintiff filed an opposition to the September 9, 2011 motion for summary judgment (Doc.

No. 42). On May 3, 2012, counsel for defendant Hamad filed a reply in support of the September

1

Case 2:10-cv-00189-WBS-DAD Document 71 Filed 03/13/13 Page 1 of 5
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

9, 2011 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 43). On May 4, 2012, the assigned District

Judge denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s April 4, 2012 order in which

plaintiff’s 56(d) motion for postponement was denied (Doc. No. 44).

On August 15, 2012, this court issued an order denying defendant’s motion for

summary judgment without prejudice (Doc. No. 46). That order was predicated on the July 6,

2012 decision in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012) concerning contemporaneous

notice requirements for motions filed in cases brought by pro se inmate litigants. See id. at 1. 

Defendant was granted twenty-eight days to renew the motion for summary judgment and

plaintiff was directed to file an opposition to any renewed motion not later than twenty-eight days

after service of the motion. Id. at 3.

Defendants filed and served their renewed motion on August 16, 2012 (Doc. No.

47). On September 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to oppose the

summary judgment motion. (Doc. No. 48.) On September 27, 2012, the court granted plaintiff

an additional thirty days in which to file and serve his opposition to defendant’s motion for

summary judgment. (Doc. No. 50). Thereafter, rather than filing an opposition to the pending

motion for summary judgment as directed, plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration of this

court’s April 4, 2012 order denying his Rule 56(d) motion (Doc. No. 51), objections to the order

granting his motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 53), a motion pursuant to Rule 60 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 55), and a new motion for postponement of summary

judgment proceedings pursuant to Rule 56(d) (Doc. No. 57). Defendant Hamad responded to all

of plaintiff’s various motions and objections. (Doc. Nos. 52, 54, 56, and 60.) Plaintiff filed reply

briefs in support of his three motions, as well as in support of his objections (Doc. Nos. 61-64).

By order filed January 25, 2013, this court denied all of plaintiff’s motions and

granted him one final period of twenty-one days in which to file and serve an opposition to

defendant’s long-pending motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 65.) On February 11, 2013,

plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of that order (Doc. No. 66). On February 22, 2013,

2

Case 2:10-cv-00189-WBS-DAD Document 71 Filed 03/13/13 Page 2 of 5
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

the assigned District Judge denied plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 68.) Also on

February 22, 2013, plaintiff filed yet another motion for extension of time to complete copying of

his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, this time requesting an additional

four-days to file his opposition. (Doc. No. 69.) Despite having previously warned plaintiff that

no further extensions of time would be granted for this purpose, the undersigned granted

plaintiff’s request, giving him until March 1, 2013 to place his long-promised opposition to

defendant’ motion for summary judgment in the mail. (Doc. No. 68.) 

Nonetheless, and despite the wide latitude granted to plaintiff by the court

throughout these proceedings, as of March 13, 2013, no opposition by plaintiff’s to defendants’

August 16, 2012 motion for summary judgment has been entered on the docket in this action. 

“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 determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order the

district court must weigh five factors including: ‘(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.’” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (quoting Thompson v.

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53

(9th Cir. 1995). 

In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court has

considered the five factors set forth in Ferdik. Here, as in Ferdik, the first two factors strongly

support dismissal of this action. The action has been pending before the court for over three

years and is well past the stage set by the court’s March 1, 2011 scheduling order, for resolution

of dispositive motions and, if necessary, preparation for pretrial conference and jury trial. (See

Scheduling Order, filed March 1, 2011 (Doc. No. 29).) Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this

court’s February 22, 2013 order suggests either that he has abandoned this action or, more likely,

3

Case 2:10-cv-00189-WBS-DAD Document 71 Filed 03/13/13 Page 3 of 5
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

that he is continuing his pattern of delay evidenced at least since the time defendant’s present

motion for summary judgment was filed. Plaintiff’s failure to file any opposition to defendant’s 

long-pending motion for summary judgment also suggests that any further time spent by the court

thereon will consume scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which plaintiff

demonstrates no intention of pursuing in accordance with this court’s orders. 

The fifth Ferdik factor also favors dismissal of this action. The court has advised

plaintiff of the requirements under the Local Rules and repeatedly granted him ample additional

time to oppose the pending motion for summary judgment, all to no avail. At this time the court

finds no suitable alternative to dismissal of this action. 

Under the circumstances of this case, the third Ferdik factor, prejudice to

defendants from plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, carries little weight. Plaintiff’s failure

to oppose the motion does not put defendants at any disadvantage in this action. See Ferdik, 963

F.2d at 1262. Indeed, defendants would only be “disadvantaged” by a decision by the court to

continue an action plaintiff has abandoned. The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition

of cases on their merits, weighs against dismissal of this action as a sanction. However, for the

reasons set forth above, the first, second, and fifth factors strongly support dismissal and the third

factor does not mitigate against it. Under the circumstances of this case, those factors outweigh

the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

1263.

For the foregoing reasons, 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 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.” The parties are advised that

4

Case 2:10-cv-00189-WBS-DAD Document 71 Filed 03/13/13 Page 4 of 5
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

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 13, 2013.

DAD:12

mart10cv0189.46fr

5

Case 2:10-cv-00189-WBS-DAD Document 71 Filed 03/13/13 Page 5 of 5