Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00225/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00225-4/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

1 06cv225 WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIPE GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. GRIMM, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

REPORT &

RECOMMENDATION RE

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

MOTION TO STRIKE

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 30, 2006, Felipe Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), naming

four additional defendants: J. McLeod, Deputy Lonsdale, M. Massey, and B. Neagles. (Doc. No. 29.) 

All Defendants answered the complaint except Lonsdale, who filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 70.) 

After considering the parties’ arguments, this Court issued a report and recommendation denying in part

and granting in part Defendant Lonsdale’s motion. (Doc. No. 85.) While the Honorable William Q.

Hayes evaluated the report and recommendation, Plaintiff motioned for leave to file, (Doc. No. 89), and

concurrently filed, a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), (Doc. No. 90). Subsequently, Judge Hayes

granted Plaintiff’s motion, making the TAC the operative plaintiff’s pleading, but he also granted

Defendant Lonsdale’s motion to dismiss, removing Lonsdale as a defendant from the TAC. (Doc. No.

101 .)

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 107 Filed 01/09/08 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 06cv225 WQH

In response to the TAC, and now before the Court, Defendants filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s

claim for injunctive relief, (Doc. No. 104), and to strike portions of the complaint directed at Lonsdale,

(Doc. No. 105), specifically “those allegations in ¶¶ 21, 72, and 23: 17-24, and the inclusion of

Lonsdale’s name at 4: 9, 21: 25, 24: 16, 28: 26, and 29: 4.” (Doc. No. 105-2 at 7.) Pursuant to Local

Civil Rule of Practice 7.1(e)(2), Plaintiff was permitted to file an opposition to Defendants’ motions

“not later than 14 calendar days prior to the noticed hearing.” The hearing for the pertinent motions

was set for November 13, 2007; Plaintiff had until October 30th to file an opposition. On October 25,

2007, the Court held a teleconference and, noting that Plaintiff had failed to file an opposition and the

impending deadline, questioned him about his opposition. (See Doc. No. 106.) Plaintiff alleged he had

not received a copy of Defendants’ motions, but said he wanted to oppose them. The Court ordered

Defendants to send Plaintiff second copies of the motions and Plaintiff to file his opposition posthaste –

both parties adamantly insisted on maintaining the deadlines set forth in the Court’s scheduling order,

dated May 9, 2007, (Doc. No. 84.), which ended discovery on December 3, 2007, (id. at 2). Yet, even

with an additional two months, Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’ motions. Accordingly, the Court

recommends that the motion to dismiss the injunctive relief claim and the motion to strike the portions

of the complaint concerning Lonsdale be GRANTED.

II. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

In the TAC, Plaintiff requests a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and a list of others,

(Doc. No. 90 at 27), from harassing him or any prisoner who submitted an affidavit in this case, (id.). In

addition, Plaintiff enumerates sundry activities to be carried out (e.g., the removal of any reference to

the events alleged in the TAC from Plaintiff’s file) by various Defendants and nondefendants. (Id. at

28.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot show “any imminent threat or impairment of his own

interests,” emphasizing that Plaintiff, currently imprisoned in the California Department of Corrections

Mule Creek Prison in Ione, California, is not presently in the custody of the Sheriff, or even physically

located in the County of San Diego. (Doc. No. 104-2 at 1, 6.) In other words, “the relief sought to

enjoin [Defendants’] future conduct regarding [Plaintiff is] based on nothing more that [sic] a mere

possibility of future contact [and] is therefore both hypothetical and moot.” (Id. at 104-2 at 6.)

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 107 Filed 01/09/08 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 06cv225 WQH

In their second motion, Defendants contend that “a motion to strike should be granted where

immaterial and impertinent allegations... irrelevant to the action... are asserted in a complaint. (Doc. No.

105-2 at 7)(citing Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogarty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1994).) Defendants continue,

“Lonsdale was dismissed with prejudice from this action on September 20, 2007, and all allegations in

the TAC purporting to state a claim against him, specifically those allegations in ¶¶ 21, 72, and 23: 17-

24, and the inclusion of Lonsdale’s name at 4: 9, 21: 25, 24: 16, 28: 26, and 29: 4 are thus irrelevant and

immaterial, and should be struck from the TAC.” (Doc. No. 105-2 at 7.)

The local rules state that a failure to file a written opposition “may constitute a consent to the

granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” S.D. Cal. Local R. 7.1(f)(3). 

Nevertheless, before the Court dismisses the claim for failure to comply with a local rule, the Court

must consider the following 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 defendants; (4) the public policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’ " Ghazali

v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1423 (9th Cir.1986)). 

Here, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving the matter and the court’s interest in managing

the docket favor dismissal of the injunctive relief claim; this relatively straightforward case was filed in

January of 2006 and now, two years later, must start over again with Plaintiff’s fourth complaint. (See

Doc. Nos. 1, 5, 29, 90.) The core of Plaintiff’s complaint survives, and the Court cannot continue to

wait while Plaintiff tinkers with the complaint’s frilly edges. A presumption of injury arises from

unreasonable delay in the prosecution of an action, Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th

Cir. 1976); thus, the third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

Although the fourth criterion weighs against dismissal, the court’s earlier consideration of Plaintiff’s

motion for a temporary restraining order, (Doc. No. 27.), which involved similar circumstances, and the

survival of the heart of Plaintiff’s complaint mitigates its consequence. As to the fifth element, granting

Defendants’ motions under the circumstances is not a drastic sanction. The Court in unaware of a lesser

alternative. 

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 107 Filed 01/09/08 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 06cv225 WQH

Lastly, the Court notes that granting Defendants’ motion to strike the allegations against Lonsdale

merely reinforces Judge Hayes’ order dismissing Lonsdale from the case. (Doc. No. 101.) The efficacy

and allowable claims of Plaintiff’s complaint remain unchanged. For the reasons discussed above, the

Court recommends that the motion to dismiss the injunctive relief claim and the motion to strike the

portions of the complaint concerning Lonsdale, as requested by Defendants, (Doc. No. 104-2 at 7), be

GRANTED.

 IT IS ORDERED that, no later than January 30, 2008, any party to this action may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to objections shall be filed on or before

February 6, 2008. The Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to raise objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 9, 2008 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable William Q. Hayes

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 107 Filed 01/09/08 Page 4 of 4