Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01088/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01088-13/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. L. A. DELIO, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 84)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) The action 

proceeds on an Eighth Amendment denial of medical care claim against Defendants

Martha Ruiz, Sonia Martinez, and T. Nguyen.1 (ECF No. 16.)

On September 18, 2015, Defendants Ruiz and Martinez filed a motion for 

summary judgment. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition as required under Local Rule 230(l). Accordingly, on October 27, 2015, 

 

1 Defendant T. Nguyen has not yet been served. 

Case 1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS Document 86 Filed 12/15/15 Page 1 of 4
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

the Court advised Plaintiff of his rights, obligations, and methods for opposing 

Defendants’ motion, and afforded Plaintiff an additional twenty-one days to file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition. (ECF No. 84.) Plaintiff was warned that his 

failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition could result in dismissal of the 

action for failure to prosecute.

The twenty-one day deadline passed without Plaintiff either filing an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition, or seeking an extension of time to do so. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with 

these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of 

any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” “District courts have 

inherent power to control their dockets [and] . . . [i]n the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. 

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure 

to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

63 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure 

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir. 

1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several 

factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the [C]ourt’s 

Case 1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS Document 86 Filed 12/15/15 Page 2 of 4
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

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.” Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423.

III. ANALYSIS

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 

factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting 

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor –

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the 

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser 

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute 

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not 

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions 

of little use.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be 

dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to obey a court order and failure to 

prosecute.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, 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.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 

Case 1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS Document 86 Filed 12/15/15 Page 3 of 4
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 4

fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS Document 86 Filed 12/15/15 Page 4 of 4