Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00388-15/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NYLES LAWAYNE WATSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0388 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On November 17, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not

opposed the motion. The court recommends that defendants’ motion be granted with the

following background explanation.

On May 5, 2006, defendants filed a motion to compel on grounds that plaintiff

failed to respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff did not timely respond to defendants’ motion. 

Accordingly, on July 3, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause within ten days for his

failure to respond. Ten days passed and plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order. 

Accordingly, on August 28, 2006, the court granted defendants’ motion and ordered plaintiff to

respond to the discovery requests within twenty days.

On September 5, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for extension of time to comply

with the August 28, 2006, order. Plaintiff claimed that he did not receive the discovery requests

Case 2:04-cv-00388-LKK -GGH Document 80 Filed 02/08/07 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

2

referred to in the motion to compel and requested that defendants be ordered to serve them on

him. On September 15, 2006, the court ordered defendants to re-serve plaintiff with the

discovery requests referred to in the motion to compel within ten days. The court granted

plaintiff thirty-five days to serve defendants with responses to the at-issue discovery. In the

September 16, 2006, order the court observed that plaintiff wasted court resources by failing to

inform the court in either a response to the motion to compel or the show cause order that he had

not received the discovery requests. 

On September 21, 2006, defendants filed a notice of re-service of the at-issue

discovery requests. In the pending motion, defendants state that plaintiff has still failed to

respond to these requests. As discussed above, not only did plaintiff fail to respond to the

discovery requests, but to the pending motion to dismiss.

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On November 29, 2004, plaintiff was advised of

the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss and that failure to oppose such a

motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of

opposition to the granting of the motion. In the alternative, the court has reviewed the motion

and finds that it has merit. Dismissal is a harsh sanction. A court abuses its discretion when it

dismisses a case for procedural non-compliance without consideration of “the impact of the

sanction and the alternatives available····” Myers v. Shekter ( In re Hill), 775 F.2d 1385, 1387

(9th Cir.1985). It may be unnecessary, however, for a court to consider alternatives to dismissal

in egregious circumstances of non-compliance. Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey), 349

F.3d 1187, 1190-91 (9th Cir.2003) (affirming dismissal imposed after egregious violations of

local rules). See also Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132 (9th Cir.1987)

(observing that in “egregious circumstances” it is unnecessary for the district court to discuss

Case 2:04-cv-00388-LKK -GGH Document 80 Filed 02/08/07 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

3

alternatives to dismissal). This is a situation of egregious non-compliance with rules and orders. 

The court is left with no alternative but dismissal when a plaintiff refuses to participate in the

action despite numerous attempts to have him do so.

Also pending is defendants’ June 30, 2006, summary judgment motion. Because

the court recommends that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted, the summary judgment

motion is vacated.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ June 30, 2006,

summary judgment motion is vacated;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ November 17, 2006, motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed.

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 twenty

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 ten 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: 2/7/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

wats0388.46

Case 2:04-cv-00388-LKK -GGH Document 80 Filed 02/08/07 Page 3 of 3