Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01670/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01670-0/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

JORGE CORTES, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1670 GEB KJM P

vs.

DR. BURVANT, 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 August 31, 2004, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On

October 25, 2002, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion pursuant

to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849

F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). In that 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 October 16, 2004, 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

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

Case 2:02-cv-01670-GEB -KJM Document 51 Filed 04/05/07 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

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The thirty day period has long

since 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.’” Id. 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 five years and has reached the

stage, set by the court’s September 15, 2003 scheduling order, for resolution of dispositive

motions and, if necessary, preparation for pretrial conference and jury trial. (See Scheduling

Order filed 9/15/03.) Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and the court’s October

16, 2004 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. 

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, 963

Case 2:02-cv-01670-GEB -KJM Document 51 Filed 04/05/07 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

F.2d 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 above, 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 id. 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: April 5, 2007. 

2/cort1670.46fr

Case 2:02-cv-01670-GEB -KJM Document 51 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 3