Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01715/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01715-2/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Michael Lashon Robinson,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv1715-WHQ (JLB)

Order Granting Pending Motions

(ECF Doc. Nos. 11, 13)

vs.

Sgt. A. Verkouteren, et al.,

Defendants.

On December 23, 2013, defendants A. Verkouteren, H. Ramos, P. De La Torre,

C. Decosta, and J. Eustice, filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF Doc. No. 11.) More than six

months have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Instead, plaintiff filed a

motion requesting that the Court dismiss defendants A. Verkouteren, P. De La Torre,

C. Decosta, and J. Eustice. (ECF Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff states in his motion seeking

voluntary dismissal of these defendants that this action should proceed against

defendant H. Ramos, but does not present any arguments responsive to defendants’

motion to dismiss. Thus, the Court does not find that plaintiff intended for his motion

for voluntary dismissal to simultaneously serve as an opposition to the pending motion

to dismiss.

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition

or statement of non-opposition within the fourteen calendar days prior to the noticed

hearing. Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting

- 1 - 13cv1715

Case 3:13-cv-01715-WQH-JLB Document 30 Filed 07/21/14 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

of a motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and

apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed

motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to

oppose as consent to granting the motion). Before dismissing an action for failure to

comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] 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 of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d

at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)). That

plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action does not excuse his failure

to follow the rules of procedure that govern other litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that

govern other litigants.”).

Here, defendants attached a Declaration of Service by U.S. Mail to their motion,

signaling that plaintiff was served at his address of record. (ECF Doc. No. 11-1.) 

Moreover, plaintiff was provided adequate time to prepare a response. The Court

scheduled a hearing for February 7, 2014, resulting in a response deadline for plaintiff

of January 24, 2014, approximately one month after defendant’s motion was filed on

December 23, 2013. More than five months have passed since the scheduled hearing

date and still plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Thus, the Court finds that “the

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its

docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the defendant” all weigh in favor of granting the

motion to dismiss. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Accordingly, the majority of the

Ghazali factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion to

dismiss (ECF Doc. No. 11) and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants A.

Verkouteren, P. De La Torre, C. Decosta, and J. Eustice (ECF Doc. No. 13) are

- 2 - 13cv1715

Case 3:13-cv-01715-WQH-JLB Document 30 Filed 07/21/14 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

GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiff filing an amended complaint. 

No later than forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order, plaintiff may

file a first amended complaint. If plaintiff files a first amended complaint, the pleading

must be complete in itself, and may not incorporate by reference any prior pleading.

DATED: July 21, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1715

Case 3:13-cv-01715-WQH-JLB Document 30 Filed 07/21/14 Page 3 of 3