Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01749/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01749-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kwame D. Blevins, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ME Global Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1749-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and, in the alternative,

Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. # 2). Plaintiff has not responded. Because of

Plaintiff’s failure to respond, Defendant also moves for summary disposition on both motions

(Doc. # 6). The Court now rules on the motions.

I. Background

Plaintiff Kwame D. Blevins filed suit in Arizona Superior Court on June 28, 2007,

alleging that he was fired in retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.

(Doc. # 1, Ex. A.) After removing the case to federal court, Defendant ME Global moved

on September 12, 2007 to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or, in the alternative, for a more

definite statement. (Doc. # 2.) Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. # 1, Ex. A) consists only of the

statement “See Attachment.” The attachments to the complaint contain a right to sue notice

from the Attorney General’s office, two charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC, a

Case 2:07-cv-01749-JAT Document 7 Filed 03/26/08 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

- 2 -

statement of facts supporting a retaliation charge, and a copy of an Arizona wage statute.

After Plaintiff failed to file a timely response, Defendant moved for summary disposition on

both motions on November 12, 2007.

II. Legal Standard and Analysis

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides that if an “unrepresented party or

counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance

may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the

issue summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i). Local Rule 7.2(c) requires responsive memoranda to be

filed within ten days after a motion is served. Plaintiff has not responded either to

Defendant’s September 12, 2007 motion to dismiss (Doc. # 2) or to Defendant’s November

12, 2007 motion for summary disposition (Doc. # 6).

“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474

(9th Cir. 1979)). “Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are

bound by the rules of procedure.” Id. at 54 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987)). “Before dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh 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 [party seeking dismissal]; (4) the public policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

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

“The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the

fourth cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and

availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

The dismissal factors in this case are similar to those present in Ghazali. In that case,

the Ninth Circuit upheld summary dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for the failure to

follow a Nevada district court local rule. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The Nevada rule, like

Local Rule 7.2(i), considered the failure to file a response to a motion to “constitute a consent

to the granting of the motion.” Id. (quoting D. Nev. R. 140-6). The Court reasoned that the

Case 2:07-cv-01749-JAT Document 7 Filed 03/26/08 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

- 3 -

dismissal was proper because the pro se plaintiff was bound by the rules of procedure, and

was given notice of the motion and ample time to respond. Id. at 54 (citing King, 814 F.2d

at 567).

Similarly, Plaintiff in this case has not responded despite receiving notice of both

Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary disposition, the latter of which was

issued over four months ago. (Doc # 6.) Further, the motion specifically warned that “the

lack of a timely response ‘may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the

Court may dispose of the motion summarily.’” (Id. at 1 (quoting LRCiv. 7.2(i)).) While the

public policy favoring resolution on the merits weighs against dismissal, it is no more

compelling here than it was in Ghazali. As noted in Wanderer, the first two

factors—expeditious resolution and docket management—generally favor dismissal.

Wanderer, 910 F.2d at 656. They weigh especially heavily here because of Plaintiff’s total

failure to respond to two dispositive motions. The third and fifth factors that Wanderer

emphasized—prejudice and availability of other sanctions—are virtually identical to those

present in Ghazali, because that case involved a pro se litigant in exactly the same procedural

position as Plaintiff. Thus, under Ghazali, dismissal of Plaintiff’s case under the local rule

is justified.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 2). The Clerk of

the Court shall enter judgment accordingly;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Disposition (Doc. # 6) as moot.

DATED this 26th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01749-JAT Document 7 Filed 03/26/08 Page 3 of 3