Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00910/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00910-10/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

ARNOLD W. LEVI, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-910 LKK KJM P

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, 

et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 27, 2003, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a

motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999); Klingele v.

Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). In that same order, plaintiff was advised that

failure to oppose a summary judgment motion might be deemed a waiver of opposition to the

motion. 

On April 3 and April 28, 2006, defendants filed renewed motions for summary

judgment. The court had denied defendants’ earlier motions for summary judgment without

prejudice in order to give plaintiff time to reassemble his legal materials, which he averred had

Case 2:02-cv-00910-LKK -KJM Document 215 Filed 01/31/07 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

2

been scrambled during several transfers, hampering his ability to oppose the earlier motions for

summary judgment.

On April 27, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendant Vong’s renewed

motion for summary judgment. The court denied this motion on May 2, 2006 and gave plaintiff

sixty days in which to file his opposition to the pending motions. 

On January 9, 2007, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of

non-opposition to the pending motion within fifteen days. In the same order, plaintiff was

informed that failure to file an opposition would result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The fifteen day period has now expired and plaintiff

has not responded to the court’s order. 

“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.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for

failure to comply with a court order the district court must weigh five factors including: ‘(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. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46

F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court has

considered the five factors set forth in Ferdik. Here, as in Ferdik, the first two factors strongly

support dismissal of this action. The action has been pending for almost five years and has twice

reached the dispositive motion stage, first set by the court’s scheduling order of October 1, 2004

and then by the order of March 31, 2006. (See Scheduling Order, filed 10/1/04 & Order filed

3/31/06.) Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and the court’s January 9, 2007

order, even after receiving several lengthy extensions of time in which to file his opposition,

Case 2:02-cv-00910-LKK -KJM Document 215 Filed 01/31/07 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

3

suggests that he has abandoned this action and that further time spent by the court thereon will

consume scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation plaintiff demonstrates no intention of

pursuing. 

The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The court has advised plaintiff of the

requirements under the Local Rules and granted ample additional time to oppose the pending

motions, all to no avail. The court finds no suitable alternative to dismissal of this action. 

Under the circumstances of this case, the third factor, prejudice to defendants

from plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, should be given modest weight. Plaintiff’s failure

to oppose the motion does not put defendants at any significant disadvantage in this action, given

that their motion is fully briefed. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Indeed, defendants would only

be “disadvantaged” by a decision by the court to continue an action plaintiff has abandoned. The

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

dismissal of this action as a sanction. However, for the reasons set forth above, the first, second,

and fifth factors strongly support dismissal and the third factor does not mitigate against it. 

Under the circumstances of this case, those factors outweigh the general public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits. Id. at 1263.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this

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

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-00910-LKK -KJM Document 215 Filed 01/31/07 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

4

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.” 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: January 30, 2007.

2

levi0910.46fr

Case 2:02-cv-00910-LKK -KJM Document 215 Filed 01/31/07 Page 4 of 4