Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01981/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01981-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DENNIS GARDNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSHUA COLEMAN,

Defendant.

No. 2:12-cv-1981 GEB CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 8, 

2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the court’s July 7, 2014 order 

directing plaintiff to appear for his deposition. The motion was submitted on the papers due to 

plaintiff’s incarceration. Plaintiff was directed to file opposition no later than October 29, 2014

and cautioned that failure to file opposition would be deemed a waiver of opposition and would 

result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. ECF No. 51.

Although the deadline for filing opposition has now passed, the court docket reflects that 

plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for dismissal of actions based on lack of 

prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even 

though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th 

Case 2:12-cv-01981-GEB-CKD Document 54 Filed 11/04/14 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

Cir. 1987). In determining whether to dismiss for lack of prosecution, generally the court 

considers (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. See, e.g., AlTorki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). The court may dismiss a case sua sponte

for lack of prosecution by the plaintiff. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 

898 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 1990). Sua sponte dismissal requires a “close focus” on consideration of 

“less drastic alternatives” and whether or not there has been a “warning of imminent dismissal of 

the case.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In determining that this action will be dismissed, the court has considered all the factors 

set forth in Al-Torki. The first two factors on their face favor the imposition of sanctions in this 

case brought by plaintiff and which has been proceeding forward since plaintiff initiated this 

action on July 30, 2012. See Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Regarding the third factor, defendant has repeatedly tried to depose plaintiff and despite being 

ordered by the court to appear for his deposition, plaintiff has failed to do so. Defendant would 

be prejudiced by further litigation of this matter despite plaintiff’s refusal to be deposed. 

Moreover, delay itself generally is prejudicial--witness memories fade and evidence becomes 

stale or undiscoverable. While the fourth factor favors resolution on the merits, in this case 

plaintiff’s failure to be deposed has precluded an evaluation of the potential merits of plaintiff’s 

claims. 

Focusing on the fifth Al-Torki factor and warning regarding imminent dismissal, as 

required by Oliva, the court in its orders of July 7, 2014 and October 9, 2014 has advised plaintiff 

that this action is subject to dismissal, directed plaintiff to appear for deposition, and directed 

plaintiff to file opposition to the pending motion. Plaintiff refused to come out of his cell for his 

duly noticed deposition and thereafter, despite the court’s order to submit to a deposition, has not 

kept defendant properly apprised of his address and thus thwarted defendant’s attempts to depose 

him. The court also granted an extension of time to September 29, 2014 for plaintiff to comply 

with the courts July 7, 2014 order granting defendant’s motion to compel, all to no avail. In light 

Case 2:12-cv-01981-GEB-CKD Document 54 Filed 11/04/14 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

of plaintiff’s failures, the court concludes there is no suitable alternative less drastic sanction to 

dismissal. The undersigned will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute the action and for failure to comply with court orders and Local Rules. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed with prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this 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 

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.” 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: November 4, 2014

4 gardner.nop.57

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:12-cv-01981-GEB-CKD Document 54 Filed 11/04/14 Page 3 of 3