Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00892/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00892-12/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-0892-TLN-JDP (P)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

On July 10, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 44. In the 

motion, defendants advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion pursuant to Rule 

56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. (citing Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (en banc)). Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. 

Therefore, on September 18, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for his failure to prosecute. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff has not responded to the order to 

show cause, and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted.

The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 

216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure 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.”). 

Case 2:21-cv-00892-TLN-JDP Document 46 Filed 11/04/24 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

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See 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, 

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 

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 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 

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

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I 

have considered “(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.” 

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted). 

Here, plaintiff has failed to respond to both defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

and a court order directing him to file a response. See ECF Nos. 44 & 45. Therefore, the public 

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk 

of prejudice to the defendant all support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my

warning to plaintiff that failure to obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the 

“considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-

33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The September 18, 2024 order expressly warned plaintiff that 

his failure to comply with court orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff had 

adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I find that 

the balance of factors weighs in favor of dismissal.

Therefore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 

comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the September 18, 2024 order.

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 44, be denied as moot.

Case 2:21-cv-00892-TLN-JDP Document 46 Filed 11/04/24 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

3. Defendants’ motion for leave to file a second summary-judgment motion, ECF No. 43, 

be denied as moot. 

4. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

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 fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00892-TLN-JDP Document 46 Filed 11/04/24 Page 3 of 3