Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00330/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00330-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVELLOUS A. X. GREENE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0330 GEB JFM P

vs.

C. D. C., 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. On April 4, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies pursuant to the non-enumerated part of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and for

failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On August 31, 2005, the court

advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion pursuant to the non-enumerated part

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1109, 1120 n.14 (9 Cir. 2003). In that th

same order, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the pending

motion and that failure to oppose such a motion might be deemed a waiver of opposition to the

motion. 

On May 19, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of

non-opposition to the pending motion within thirty days. In the same order, plaintiff was

Case 2:05-cv-00330-GEB -JFM Document 34 Filed 09/29/06 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

2

informed that failure to file an opposition would result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). On June 14, 2006 and July 20, 2006, plaintiff

received extensions of time to file and serve an opposition to the motion. The July 20, 2006

order set a final deadline of September 12, 2006 for the filing of plaintiff’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition. That deadline has now expired and plaintiff has not responded to

the court’s order. 

“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.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (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, 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 for a year and a half and the court

has not yet issued a scheduling order due to the pendency of defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and the court’s May 19, 2006 order suggests

that he has abandoned this action and that further time spent by the court thereon will consume

scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which plaintiff demonstrates no intention to

pursue. 

The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The court has advised plaintiff of the

requirements under the Local Rules and granted ample additional time to oppose the pending

motion, all to no avail. The court finds no suitable alternative to dismissal of this action. 

Case 2:05-cv-00330-GEB -JFM Document 34 Filed 09/29/06 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

3

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

from plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, should be given little weight. Plaintiff’s failure to

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

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 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: September 29, 2006.

12

gree0330.46fr

Case 2:05-cv-00330-GEB -JFM Document 34 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3