Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01511/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01511-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENTE SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARRASCO, et al,

Defendants.

1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR 

PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION

(Docs. 36, 42, 51, 55)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Vincente Solomon, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff’s proceeds on claims in his amended complaint against 

Defendants Carrasco and Dailo (Defendants) for depriving him of outdoor exercise, in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

On July 22, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which included notice

to Plaintiff of the requirements to oppose their motion. (Doc. 36.) Despite requesting and 

receiving two sixty (60) day extensions of time (Docs. 42, 51), Plaintiff did not file an opposition 

or a statement of non-opposition to the motion despite lapse of the requisite time. Local Rule 

230(l). 

On January 12, 2016, two orders issued: (1) a Second Informational Order, which 

informed Plaintiff of the requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Doc. 54); and (2) an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within twenty-one 

Case 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 02/11/16 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

(21) days of the date that order issued (Doc. 55). In the latter order, Plaintiff was admonished that 

his failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within the twenty-one (21) day 

deadline would result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. (Id.) 

Twenty-one days from January 12, 2016 lapsed on February 2, 2016. Plaintiff has filed 

neither an opposition, nor a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment, nor any other response to the January 12, 2016, order.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel, or 

of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of 

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

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

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

In light of Plaintiff=s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the January 12, 2016,

order which required him to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to 

respond to or obey a court order and for his failure to prosecute. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with 

prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure both to obey a court order and to prosecute this action. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e (a).

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

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

twenty-one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

Case 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 02/11/16 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

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: February 10, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 3