Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00264/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00264-8/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

JOHN MCCLINTOCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLOSIMO et al.,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-0264 TLN DAD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons discussed herein, the court will 

recommend that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

BACKGROUND

On August 15, 2014, counsel on behalf of defendants Casillas and Merriweather filed a 

motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies 

prior to filing suit as required. (Doc. No. 35) On August 26, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to stay 

this action in light of an interlocutory appeal he had filed challenging the undersigned‟s order 

denying him appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 38) On October 28, 2014, the undersigned 

denied plaintiff‟s motion for a stay as having been rendered moot because the Ninth Circuit had 

dismissed plaintiff‟s interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 43) The undersigned 

also ordered plaintiff to file an opposition to defendants‟ motion for summary judgment. (Id.) 

Case 2:13-cv-00264-TLN-DB Document 51 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 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

2

Instead of filing an opposition to defendants‟ motion, however, plaintiff filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the court‟s order denying his motion for a stay because plaintiff had since filed 

a motion for reconsideration with the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. No. 44) On January 8, 2015, the 

undersigned denied plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration as also having been rendered moot 

because the Ninth Circuit by that time had already denied plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration 

filed in that court and informed plaintiff that it would not entertain any further filings from him in 

that closed case. (Doc. No. 45) Once again, the undersigned then ordered plaintiff to file an 

opposition to defendants‟ motion for summary judgment, specifically warning plaintiff that no 

further delay would be tolerated and that “any failure on his part to file an opposition to 

defendants‟ motion for summary judgment in compliance with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.” (Id.) Nonetheless, the time for plaintiff to file his 

opposition to defendants‟ long-pending motion for summary judgment has now expired, and 

plaintiff still has not filed any opposition to that motion. Rather, plaintiff has filed yet another

interlocutory appeal of the undersigned‟s order denying him appointment of counsel, which the 

Ninth Circuit recently dismissed as duplicative of plaintiff‟s prior appeal. (Doc. Nos. 46 & 49) 

DISCUSSION

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an 

action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1260 (9th Cir. 1992). In Ferdik, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion when it dismissed a pro se litigant‟s civil rights action for failing to file an 

amended complaint. The court explained that, in deciding whether to dismiss a case for a 

litigant‟s failure to comply with a court order, the district court must weigh five 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 alternatives.”

Id. at 1260-61 (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.3d 829, 831 (9th 

Cir. 1986).

/////

Case 2:13-cv-00264-TLN-DB Document 51 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 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

3

In this case, the first two factors as well as the fifth factor cited by the court in Ferdik

strongly support dismissal of this action. This case has been pending before the court since 

February 11, 2013, and has some time ago reached the summary judgment stage of litigation. 

Plaintiff‟s repeated failure to comply with court orders and the Local Rules strongly suggests that 

further time spent by the court on this case will consume scarce judicial resources in addressing 

litigation which plaintiff has demonstrated he has no intention to diligently pursue. Notably, the 

court specifically warned plaintiff in its January 8, 2015 order that it would not tolerate further 

delay with respect to consideration of defendants‟ motion for summary judgment and that any 

failure on plaintiff‟s part to file an opposition to that motion would result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed. Inexplicably, plaintiff not only failed to file any opposition to 

defendants‟ motion for summary judgment as required, but instead, he has again filed a 

duplicative interlocutory appeal, which the Ninth Circuit has already dismissed. Under these 

circumstances, there is no suitable less drastic alternative to dismissal of this case. In short, 

plaintiff‟s repeated refusal to follow the court‟s orders has left the court stymied and made it 

impossible for this civil action to be adjudicated by the court. Therefore, due to plaintiff‟s 

conduct, the undersigned is left with no choice but to recommend dismissal of this action.

The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

Plaintiff‟s failure to oppose defendants Casillas and Merriweather‟s motion for summary 

judgment prevents these defendants from addressing plaintiff‟s claims and unnecessarily delays 

resolution of this action thereby forcing all of the defendants to incur additional time and expense. 

See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (“When considering prejudice to the 

defendant, „the failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to justify dismissal, even in the 

absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant from the failure.... The law presumes 

injury from unreasonable delay.‟”) (quoting Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 

1976)).

Finally, the fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, weighs 

against dismissal of this action. However, for the reasons set forth above, the first, second, third, 

/////

Case 2:13-cv-00264-TLN-DB Document 51 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 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

4

and fifth factors support dismissal. Under the circumstances of this case, those factors outweigh 

the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

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.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within seven days after 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: February 10, 2015

DAD:9

mccl0264.57

Case 2:13-cv-00264-TLN-DB Document 51 Filed 02/11/15 Page 4 of 4