Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01636/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01636-15/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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Charles W. Windham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

claims of excessive force against Defendants M. Marin, D. Uribe, W. Rasley, J. Contreras, A. Capano, 

R. Rubio, and Doe #1, and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants C. 

Navarro, V. Morales, M. Marin and S. Shiver. 

I. Motion to Dismiss

On February 5, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this matter, noting that Plaintiff has 

failed to comply with two prior orders from this Court to submit an opposition brief to Defendants’ 

pending motion for summary judgment, and also failed to serve interrogatory responses. (ECF No. 

61.) Defendants also noted that Plaintiff had not filed anything in this matter since September 2015. 

CHARLES W. WINDHAM,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. MARIN, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MOTION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S ACTION PURSUANT TO 

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Document 65 Filed 04/04/16 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

(Id. at 3.)1 As a result, Defendants move for this action to be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b).

On February 15, 2016, shortly after Defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed, Plaintiff filed an 

opposition, (ECF No. 62), supported by a later-filed declaration, (ECF No. 64). Plaintiff asserts that he 

was transferred to the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, California on October 1, 2015, and

from that date until about January 13, 2016, he was unable to communicate with the Court and 

Defendants due to various reasons. These reasons included problems with the mail, including lack of 

access to his legal mail; lack of access to writing and mailing supplies; health and medical treatment 

matters; and matters pertaining to problems with the correctional institution staff. Plaintiff further 

asserts that he is now housed in a unit where those issues are resolved, except that his legal property is

still stored at his prior institution in Corcoran, California, and he has not yet received those materials. 

Plaintiff states that his lack of compliance with the Court’s previous orders has been due to these 

reasons. Plaintiff seeks and order directing Defendants to re-serve their interrogatories and motion for 

summary judgment on him, and permitting him time to respond.

Defendants have not replied to Plaintiff’s opposition. The motion is deemed submitted. Local 

Rule 230(l).

II. Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to 

prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action 

or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court 

must consider several factors: (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. 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 

1988). 

///

 

1 Defendants are not entirely correct in this representation. Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address on 

January 31, 2016, which was entered on the docket on February 4, 2016, just before Defendants filed their 

motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 60.)

Case 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Document 65 Filed 04/04/16 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

In this case, considering the relevant factors and the parties’ submissions, the Court 

recommends denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Although the parties’ compliance with pending 

deadlines and court orders is very important, in these circumstances the litigation has not yet been 

unduly delayed, nor has the Court’s ability to manage its docket been substantially burdened. Plaintiff 

has shown good cause for his non-compliance under the circumstances, and a willingness to prosecute 

this matter in a timely fashion, so as to achieve disposition on the merits. Defendants argue they are 

prejudiced by the delay here, because they did not received responses to the interrogatories they 

served, which were related to exhaustion issues and thus affected their motion for summary judgment. 

The Court finds that these matters can be alleviated with less-drastic remedies than dismissal, such as 

by ordering Plaintiff to respond to the interrogatories, and permitting Defendants to submit additional 

briefing in support of their motion for summary judgment, if warranted. The Court may also order 

Plaintiff to file his overdue opposition to the motion for summary judgment under a strict deadline, so 

as to alleviate any further delays in this matter. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

For these reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendants motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Rule 41(b), (ECF No. 61), be denied. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Document 65 Filed 04/04/16 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

Case 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Document 65 Filed 04/04/16 Page 4 of 4