Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01511/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01511-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENTE SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARRASCO, et al,

Defendants.

1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR ANOTHER EXTENSION 

OF TIME and DISMISSING THIS ACTION 

FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

(Docs. 36, 42, 51, 55, 56, 57)

Plaintiff, Vincente Solomon, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 on claims in his amended complaint against 

Defendants Carrasco and Dailo (“Defendants”) for depriving him of outdoor exercise, in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

On July 22, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which included notice

to Plaintiff of the requirements to oppose their motion. (Doc. 36.) Despite requesting and 

receiving two sixty (60) day extensions of time (Docs. 42, 51), Plaintiff did not file an opposition 

or a statement of non-opposition to the motion despite lapse of the requisite time. Local Rule 

230(l). On January 12, 2016, two orders issued: (1) a Second Informational Order, which 

informed Plaintiff of the requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Doc. 54); and (2) an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within twenty-one 

(21) days of the date that order issued (Doc. 55). In the latter order, Plaintiff was admonished that 

Case 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO Document 58 Filed 02/12/16 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

his failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-one (21) days would 

result in dismissal because of his failure to prosecute this action. (Id.) 

Twenty-one days from January 12, 2016 lapsed on February 2, 2016 with Plaintiff filing 

neither an opposition, nor a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment, nor any other response to the January 12, 2016 order. On February 10, 2016, the 

Magistrate Judge assigned to this case signed a Findings and Recommendations1that this action 

be dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the January 12, 2016 order and 

for his failure to prosecute this action. Later that same date, Plaintiff filed yet another request for 

an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion. (Doc. 56.)

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel, or 

of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of 

Los Angeles, 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 or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 

comply with local rules. See, e.g. 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 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 

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

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Plaintiff has already received generous extensions of time to file his opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, with which he failed to comply. All in all, from the 

date originally due (August 12, 2016 through the 21-day deadline set in the January 12, 2016 

order) Plaintiff has had had over five months of extensions to file an opposition or a statement of 

non-opposition, but has failed to do so. The Court has been more than patient. Extension of time 

beyond the five months Plaintiff has already been granted is unreasonable. 

 

1 Though signed on February 10, 2016, it was docketed in this case on February 10, 2016.

Case 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO Document 58 Filed 02/12/16 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s latest request for a 45-day extension of time to file an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on February 10, 2016 (Doc. 

56), is DENIED; 

(2) the Findings and Recommendations that was docketed on February 11, 2016 (Doc. 

57) is stricken from the docket since mooted by this order;

(3) This action is dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the January 12, 

2016 order which directed him to file an opposition or a statement of nonopposition within 21-days; and

(4) The Clerk’s Office is directed to close this action.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO Document 58 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 3