Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00620/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00620-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

19cv620-CAB-AHG

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

DENNIS SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY K. BRANGWYNNE, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv620-CAB-AHG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 31] AND 

CLOSING CASE

On March 17, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended 

Complaint (“Motion”). [Doc. No. 31.] The Motion was set for hearing (without oral 

argument) on April 21, 2020. Id. Per Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), Plaintiff’s opposition to the 

Motion should have been filed and served by April 7, 2020. To date, no opposition has 

been filed. On April 13, 2020, Defendants filed Notice Re: No Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Notice”), noting that Plaintiff had not filed or served 

any opposition to the Motion. [Doc. No. 32.] Plaintiff has also not responded to the 

Notice.

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

statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. Failure 

to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting 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, 

Case 3:19-cv-00620-CAB-AHG Document 33 Filed 04/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv620-CAB-AHG

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

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 proof of service to their motion [Doc. No. 31-2], 

signaling that Plaintiff was served at the address provided in Plaintiff’s most recent filing 

[Doc. No. 30]. Defendants also served Plaintiff with the Notice. [Doc. No. 32-1.] 

However, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion or the Notice. Moreover, Plaintiff 

was provided adequate time to prepare a response to the motion, as Plaintiff’s opposition 

was due April 7, 2020. 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.

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 31] is GRANTED. It is further 

ORDERED that the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

Case 3:19-cv-00620-CAB-AHG Document 33 Filed 04/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv620-CAB-AHG

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

PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the case.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00620-CAB-AHG Document 33 Filed 04/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3