Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00560/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00560-6/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 – 17cv560

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

JAMI JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM

ORDER: 

(1)ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS CASE

[ECF No. 38]

AND

(2)DISMISSING CASE WITH 

PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 

RULE 41(b)

v.

D. PAMPLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff Jami Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, brought this Section 1983 action against various prison 

officers. (ECF No. 1.) The last document Plaintiff filed on the docket was a June 16, 

2017 notice of change of address. (ECF No. 20.) After that notice, Defendants 

moved to dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff did not oppose. Magistrate 

Judge Barbara Major issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which 

recommended granting in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint. (ECF 

No. 27.) Plaintiff did not object. This Court subsequently adopted in part the R&R 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 39 Filed 02/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 17cv560

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

and granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint no later than February 26, 2018 

to cure certain deficiencies in his pleadings. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff did not file an 

amended complaint. Defendants answered the remaining claims. (ECF No. 33.) 

Several months later Judge Major issued an order requiring Plaintiff to appear for a 

mandatory settlement conference on November 19, 2019. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff 

did not appear. 

On November 20, 2018, Judge Major issued an order for Plaintiff to show 

cause why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference as 

ordered, failure to conduct any discovery, failure to respond to Court orders, and 

failure to otherwise prosecute this case. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff was ordered to 

respond no later than December 19, 2018. (Id. at 3.) In view of Plaintiff’s failure to 

respond, Judge Major has issued a R&R, which recommends that this Court should 

dismiss the case with prejudice. (ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff has not filed any objection 

to the R&R. For the reasons herein, the Court approves and adopts the R&R and 

dismisses this case with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are 

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. “The 

statute makes it clear,” however, “that the district judge must review the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 

otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en 

banc) (emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district 

court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 39 Filed 02/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 17cv560

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

Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this District. 

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo 

review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); 

Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting 

report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the 

report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 

1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has not filed any objection to Judge Major’s recommendation during 

the four week period in which objections could be filed. On this basis alone, the 

Court may adopt the R&R without further analysis. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

However, having conducted its own review of the record, applicable law, and Judge 

Major’s R&R, the Court finds that Judge Major’s conclusions and recommendation 

are proper. 

Pursuant to Rule 41(b), “[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). A court may dismiss a case pursuant to Rule 41 

(b) sua sponte. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forestry Serv., 403 

F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which 

we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte”) (citing Olsen v. 

Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Rule has long been 

interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to 

prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court's orders.”)); Kilpatrick 

v. Mitchelle, No. 2:12-cv-01554 MCE KJN PS, 2012 WL 4208919, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 39 Filed 02/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 17cv560

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

Sept. 18, 2012) (“[c]ase law is in accord that a district court may impose sanctions, 

including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case with prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or 

her case or fails to comply with the court’s orders.”). 

Judge Major applied the appropriate standard in the Ninth Circuit that when a 

district court is considering whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, it must 

consider five 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 the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 

availability of less drastic sanctions. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Judge Major addressed each factor and properly concluded that all factors weighed 

in favor of dismissal. 

First, Plaintiff’s last action in this case occurred in June 2017. (ECF No. 20.) 

Plaintiff has not conducted discovery and has not responded to multiple Court orders, 

which negatively impacts both the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of 

litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket. 

Second, “the failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to justify a 

dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant from 

the failure . . . The law presumes injury from unreasonable delay.” Eisen, 31 F.3d 

1447, 1452 (9th Cir. 1994); Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 651 (9th 

Cir. 1991). This case has been pending for nearly two years and remains at an 

impasse because Plaintiff has not taken any action for some twenty months. There 

is no evidence which would overcome this inherent prejudice of delay to Defendants. 

Third, “a case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed by a party’s failure to 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 39 Filed 02/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 17cv560

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

comply with deadlines and discovery obligations cannot move forward toward 

resolution on the merits.” In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 

2006). Indeed, this case has not progressed toward any merits resolution and cannot 

do so because the plaintiff who initiated this case remains absent. 

Fourth, there are no less drastic sanctions applicable in this case. Because 

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the imposition of monetary sanctions 

would be “inappropriate and likely ineffective” and “would not remedy Plaintiff’s 

lack of participation.” (ECF No. 38 at 7.) Moreover, as Judge Major underscored, 

Plaintiff has been provided multiple opportunities—and more than enough time—to 

give any notice to the Court of his desire to continue prosecuting this action. Plaintiff 

had nearly four weeks to respond to Judge Major’s R&R, but has not done so. 

Plaintiff has otherwise not taken any action to communicate with the Court or show 

any desire to continue prosecuting this case. Dismissal with prejudice is wholly 

appropriate. 

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the R&R 

in its entirety. (ECF No. 38.) Pursuant to Rule 41(b), the Court DISMISSES WITH 

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) The Clerk of the Court shall close 

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 8, 2019

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 39 Filed 02/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5