Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00459/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00459-5/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Jesus A. Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to his health and safety in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment against Defendants J. Mejia and J. Faure. 

///

///

///

JESUS A. GARCIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00459-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, 

WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE AND TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 30)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:14-cv-00459-AWI-BAM Document 31 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

I. Background

On May 4, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.1(ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff’s opposition was due 

on or before May 31, 2016. Plaintiff filed no opposition, and thus on June 8, 2016, Plaintiff was 

ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion within twentyone (21) days. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff was expressly warned that the failure to comply with that order 

would result in dismissal of his action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a 

court order. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff failed to comply with that order.

Accordingly, on July 13, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should 

not be dismissed for the failure to prosecute and the failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 30.)

Plaintiff was again warned that the failure to show good cause would result in the case being 

dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s response to that order was due on or before August 1, 

2016. However, as of the date of this order, Plaintiff has neither complied with the Court’s previous 

orders, nor otherwise communicated with the Court. At this time, Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss is now more than two (2) months overdue.

II. Discussion

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . 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.” District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 

the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 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, failure to obey a court order, or failure to 

comply with local rules. See, e.g., 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 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 

833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

 

1 The motion was filed by Defendant Faure, and later joined by Defendant Mejia. (ECF No. 27.)

Case 1:14-cv-00459-AWI-BAM Document 31 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 4
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

In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several 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. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Here, the action has been pending for over two (2) years. The current motion to dismiss the 

action has been pending since May 2016, and despite multiple attempts to communicate with Plaintiff, 

he has been non-responsive to the Court’s orders. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if a 

party ceases litigating the case. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Because public policy favors disposition on 

the merits, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 

(9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move 

a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which 

is the case here. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228.

Finally, the court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s June 8, 2016 order expressly 

warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with that order would result in dismissal of this action, with 

prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 28, p. 2.) The warning 

was reiterated in the Court’s July 13, 2016 order to show cause. (ECF No. 30.) Thus, Plaintiff had 

adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance.

Also, 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 the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect 

given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case.

Case 1:14-cv-00459-AWI-BAM Document 31 Filed 08/09/16 Page 3 of 4
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

In summary, Plaintiff filed this action but is no longer prosecuting it. The Court cannot afford 

to expend resources resolving unopposed dispositive motions in a case which Plaintiff is no longer 

prosecuting. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 

district judge to this action.

Further, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY 

RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and for failure 

to obey a court order. 

These Findings and Recommendation 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 fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” 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: August 8, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00459-AWI-BAM Document 31 Filed 08/09/16 Page 4 of 4