Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00065/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00065-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

ALICIA JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-0065 JAM CKD PS

ORDER and FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 14, 

2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The motion was noticed to be heard on June 24, 

2015.

On June 15, 2015, because plaintiff had not filed either an opposition or a statement of 

non-opposition to the motions, the undersigned continued the hearing on the motion to July 8, 

2015 and directed plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition 

thereto, no later than June 19, 2015. Plaintiff was advised that failure to file an opposition would 

be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion and would result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Although the deadlines have now passed, the court docket reflects that plaintiff has not 

filed an opposition to the motion or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. The Federal 

Case 2:15-cv-00065-JAM-CKD Document 11 Filed 06/23/15 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

Rules of Civil Procedure provide for dismissal of actions based on lack of prosecution. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are 

liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). In 

determining whether to dismiss for lack of prosecution, generally the court considers (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. See, e.g., Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 

F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). The court may dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution 

by the plaintiff. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 

1990). Sua sponte dismissal requires a “close focus” on consideration of “less drastic 

alternatives” and whether or not there has been a “warning of imminent dismissal of the case.” 

Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In determining that this action will be dismissed, the court has considered all the factors 

set forth in Al-Torki. The first two factors on their face favor the imposition of sanctions in this 

case brought by plaintiff and which has been proceeding forward since plaintiff initiated this 

action on January 9, 2015. See Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Regarding the third factor, defendants already have briefed their motion to dismiss, and would be 

prejudiced by the need for further litigation of this matter despite plaintiff’s non-responsiveness. 

Moreover, delay itself generally is prejudicial--witness memories fade and evidence becomes 

stale or undiscoverable. While the fourth factor favors resolution on the merits, in this case 

plaintiff has declined to oppose the motion to dismiss and thus has precluded the court’s 

evaluation of the potential merits of such an opposition. 

Focusing on the fifth Al-Torki factor and warning regarding imminent dismissal, as 

required by Oliva, the court in its order of June 15, 2015 has advised plaintiff that this action is 

subject to dismissal, directed plaintiff to file opposition, and granted ample additional time to 

oppose the pending motion after plaintiff failed to timely oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss, 

all to no avail. In light of plaintiff’s failures, the court concludes there is no suitable alternative 

less drastic sanction to dismissal. The undersigned will therefore recommend that this action be 

Case 2:15-cv-00065-JAM-CKD Document 11 Filed 06/23/15 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

dismissed for failure to prosecute the action and for failure to comply with court orders and Local 

Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing date of July 8, 2015 on 

defendants’ motion to dismiss is vacated; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed with prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

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.” 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: June 23, 2015

4 jackson0065.nop.57

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00065-JAM-CKD Document 11 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 3