Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00153/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00153-3/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

DAYON D. LIVELY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv153-LAB (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON

THE PLEADINGS; AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

vs.

ROBERT TOVAR, et al.,

Defendant.

On January 24, 2011, Plaintiff Dayon Lively, a prisoner in state custody, filed his

complaint in this action bringing claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was

referred to Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin for report and recommendation. 

One Defendant,Afshid Nahavandi, moved to dismiss. Judge Dembin issued his report

and recommendation, recommending dismissing claims against that Defendant. On March

12, 2012, the Court adopted the unobjected-to report and recommendation and dismissed

claims against that Defendant. Then on May 24, 2013, the remaining served Defendants

moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Judge

Dembin on June 19, 2013 issued the notice required under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952

(9 Cir. 1998) (en banc) and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9 Cir. 1988), cautioning th th

Lively that he had to oppose the motion, that his written opposition had to be filed by July 22,

2013, and that failure to file an opposition could result in judgment being entered against

him. 

- 1 - 11cv153

Case 3:11-cv-00153-LAB-MDD Document 52 Filed 08/09/13 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

Lively did submit a request for additional time to file an opposition to the motion for

summary judgment, but Judge Dembin on June 28 rejected it on a discrepancy order

(Docket no. 50), noting that the request was moot because an extension had already been

granted by the order containing the Klingele notice. The rejected document asked that the

June 28 hearing date be extended because Lively didn’t receive the summary judgment

motion until about eighteen days after it was filed. Judge Dembin continued the June 28

hearing until August 12, which more than made up for the time Lively lost. 

Lively never sought any additional extensions of time, nor did he object to any of

Judge Dembin’s rulings. July 22 has come and gone, and Lively has not filed an opposition

or anything else. Although he is entitled to the benefit of the “prisoner mailbox rule,” See

Ugalde v. Chase, 2013 WL 1183321, at *3 n.2 (D. Or., March 21, 2013) (noting that courts

have applied the “prisoner mailbox rule” to a variety of legal documents, including responses

to oppositions to summary judgment), an opposition mailed from the prison where Lively is

held should have arrived long before now.

The Court concludes that Lively does not intend to oppose the motion for judgment

on the pleadings or summary judgment. In view of this, there is no reason to require Judge

Dembin to issue a report and recommendation on Defendants’ motion. The reference of this

motion to Judge Dembin is therefore WITHDRAWN, and the unopposed motion is

GRANTED. See Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(e)(c) (providing that failure to file an opposition may

constitute consent to the motion’s being granted). All claims against Defendants Mills,

Tovar, Kirby, Ko, Escribano, Abbott, Alvarado, and Carreno are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

The only remaining Defendant is Sgt. Miguel Trujillo. Trujillo has not appeared or

waived service, nor has proof of service on Trujillo been filed. Since filing the complaint,

Lively has taken no steps to prosecute his claims against Trujillo. If Lively still wishes to

pursue claims against Trujillo, he must show cause for his failure to serve Trujillo and failure

to prosecute. He may do so by filing a memorandum of points and authorities not to exceed

five pages, no later than August 26, 2013, showing 1) either that he served Trujillo, or why

- 2 - 11cv153

Case 3:11-cv-00153-LAB-MDD Document 52 Filed 08/09/13 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

his failure to serve Trujillo should be excused; and 2) why his failure to prosecute claims

against Trujillo should be excused. Lively must show both, not just one. If he fails to show

cause within the time permitted, his remaining claims will be dismissed in accordance with

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b), and Civil Local Rule 41.1, and this action will be dismissed

with prejudice. 

If Lively does not intend to pursue claims against Trujillo, he need not do anything,

and this action will be dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 8, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv153

Case 3:11-cv-00153-LAB-MDD Document 52 Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 3