Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00283/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00283-16/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN RANSOM, 

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

ROJAS, 

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-00283-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS CASE WITH PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 45.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS

Bryan Ransom ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 17, 2010, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition or

statement of opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment filed October 29, 2009, within

thirty days. (Doc. 45.) More than four months have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to

Defendant's motion or otherwise responded to the court's order.

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set forth

in its order, “the Court must weigh 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

defendants/respondents; (4) the availabilityof less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policyfavoring

disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

1

Case 1:05-cv-00283-AWI-GSA Document 49 Filed 06/22/10 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

“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’” id. 

(quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the action has

been pending for more than five years. Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition to Defendant's motion for

summary judgment and to complywith the Court's ordermayreflect Plaintiff's disinterest or his inability

to prosecute this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot continue to expend its scarce resources

assisting a litigant who will not help himself by defending against a motion for summary judgment or

complying with the Court's order. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of

itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently increases the risk

that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it is Plaintiff's failure to

prosecute his case and in the first instance and to respond to the Court's order in the second instance that

is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available

to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further

unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action,

making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion

of evidence or witnesses is not available. The dismissal being considered in this case is with prejudice

which is the harshest possible sanction. However, the court finds this sanction appropriate in light of the

fact that seven months has passed since Defendant filed the motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff

has yet to respond. Moreover, Plaintiff was forewarned in the court's order of February 17, 2010 that

this action would be dismissed with prejudice if he failed to defend against the motion for summary

judgment.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always weigh

against dismissal. Id. at 643.

Accordingly, the court HEREBYRECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice,

based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of February 17, 2010 and failure to prosecute. 

///

2

Case 1:05-cv-00283-AWI-GSA Document 49 Filed 06/22/10 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

These findings and recommendations are 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 thirty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 

Such a 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

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 21, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:05-cv-00283-AWI-GSA Document 49 Filed 06/22/10 Page 3 of 3