Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02676/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02676-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IHAB GAMIL DIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB

ORDER 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; and

(2) DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF Nos. 33, 43]

This matter comes before the Court on a Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by 

Defendants the County of San Diego, Sean Gallagher, and Jason Ferguson. ECF No. 33. 

The Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks for a Report and 

Recommendation. ECF No. 34. As set forth below, the Report and Recommendation is 

adopted and the Motion is denied. However, due to continuing non-compliance with 

Orders of this Court, Plaintiff Ihab Gamil Dia’s Complaint is dismissed without 

prejudice.

I. Factual and Procedural History

On November 26, 2018, Dia filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging 

violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Dia was represented by counsel, but later his 

Case 3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB Document 51 Filed 11/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB

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

attorney requested to withdraw. ECF No. 16. The Court granted the Motion to Withdraw 

on August 2, 2019, and allowed Dia forty-five days to obtain new counsel, after which 

Dia would be deemed to proceed pro se. ECF No. 19.

Dia did not obtain new counsel but continued to appear at Settlement Conferences 

with Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on November 13, 2019, January 15, 2020, and 

May 19, 2020. The Parties requested an extension of the deadlines for the scheduling 

Order citing, among other reasons, Dia’s incarceration at the time and his poor health. 

On June 18, 2020, Magistrate Judge Brooks granted the extension in part and issued an 

amended Scheduling Order. ECF No. 31. Dia sent a supplemental document the 

following day stating that he remained unable to pursue his case due to physical and 

mental health impairments. ECF No. 32.

On July 28, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions arguing 

that Dia’s failure to prosecute the case and requested delays caused them prejudice 

warranting dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 37, and 41. ECF 

No. 33. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Brooks for a Report and 

Recommendation. ECF No. 34. Magistrate Judge Brooks set a briefing schedule for the 

Motion and held another Settlement Conference, at which Dia failed to appear. ECF 

Nos. 35, 36. Magistrate Judge Brooks noted that Defendants’ counsel indicated that Dia 

was released from custody on July 22, 2020. ECF No. 36.

Dia failed to file any pleadings in accordance with the briefing schedule outlined 

by Magistrate Judge Brooks. Nonetheless, Magistrate Judge Brooks issued a thoughtful 

and thorough Report and Recommendation analyzing the five factors set forth in Malone 

v. U.S. Postal Service for determining whether dismissal is appropriate when a party fails 

to comply with court orders. 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Magistrate Judge 

Brooks recommended denying Defendants’ Motion because the fifth factor, the

availability of less drastic sanctions, was still available at that time. ECF No. 43, 8. 

Magistrate Judge Brooks cautioned Dia, however, that his “case is hanging by a thread.” 

Id. He reminded Dia that he “cannot continue to disregard the Court’s orders and 

Case 3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB Document 51 Filed 11/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB

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

Defendants’ efforts to litigate this case.” Id. The time for objections to the Report and 

Recommendation has since lapsed, and neither Party filed an objection.

II. Legal Standards

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 

the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that 

the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) provides “[o]n motion or on its own, the 

court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), 

if a party . . . (A) fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference . . . or (C) 

fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

37(b)(2)(A) provides that if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit 

discovery,” the Court may “dismiss[] the action or proceeding in whole or in part.” The 

five factors considered by a court in ordering dismissal as a terminating sanction are 

thoroughly described in the Report and Recommendation. See ECF No. 43, 5 (citing 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 130. While “dismissal for lack of prosecution is a harsh penalty and 

is to be imposed only in extreme circumstances,” dismissal may be supported “by a 

showing of unreasonable delay.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986) (citations omitted). 

Local Civil Rule 83.11(b) requires parties proceeding pro se to “keep the court and 

opposing parties advised as to current address.” It provides that if “mail directed to a pro 

se plaintiff by the clerk at the plaintiff's last designated address is returned by the Post 

Case 3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB Document 51 Filed 11/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB

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

Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties within 60 days 

thereafter of the plaintiff's current address, the court may dismiss the action without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id. (emphasis added).

III. Analysis

The Court need not conduct de novo review of the Report and Recommendation 

given the absence of objections. The Court has considered and agrees with the Report 

and Recommendation (ECF No. 43) and accordingly adopts it. Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss (ECF No. 33) is denied. However, in the time since the Report and 

Recommendation was issued Dia has persisted in non-compliance with court orders and 

thus the fifth Malone factor now weighs strongly in favor of dismissal.

On August 12, 2020, Magistrate Judge Brooks directed a copy of his order setting 

a further Settlement Conference be sent to both Dia’s current docket address at the 

George Bailey Detention Facility and the address Dia used prior to his incarceration. 

ECF No. 36. The Order further admonished Dia that Local Civil Rule 83.11(b) requires 

him to keep the Court and opposing parties advised of his current address. Id. The Order 

was returned undeliverable. ECF No. 40.

On September 10, 2020, Magistrate Judge Brooks held a telephonic Settlement 

Conference at which Dia failed to appear. ECF No. 41. Following the Settlement 

Conference, Magistrate Judge Brooks again set a Settlement Conference for October 6, 

2020, and directed the Order be served on Dia at both the George Bailey Detention 

Facility and the address he used prior to his incarceration. Id. The Order was again 

returned undeliverable. ECF No. 45. Magistrate Judge Brooks also issued an Order to 

Show Cause, requiring Dia to file a response by September 22, 2020, to explain “why 

sanctions, including dismissal of this action, should not be imposed,” and to appear 

telephonically at the Settlement Conference on October 6, 2020. ECF No. 42.

Despite Magistrate Judge Brooks’ Order to Show Cause, Dia failed to respond to 

the Order or to appear at the Settlement Conference. ECF No. 47. Magistrate Judge 

Brooks set a further Settlement Conference for November 4, 2020 and directed a copy of 

Case 3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB Document 51 Filed 11/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB

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

the Order be sent to Dia at both of his known addresses discussed above. That Order, 

once again, was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 49. On November 4, 2020, Dia 

once again failed to appear for the Settlement Conference. ECF No. 50.

The Post Office first returned as undeliverable mail intended for Dia at his last 

designated addresses on August 21, 2020. ECF Nos. 37-38. Since that point, all mail 

intended for Dia sent by the Court has been returned undeliverable. See ECF Nos. 39-40, 

44-46, 49. More than sixty days have elapsed.

Dia has been warned on several occasions that his failure to participate in 

telephonic Settlement Conferences could be grounds for dismissal of his action. See ECF 

Nos. 41-42, 47. His continued non-compliance with orders is causing an unreasonable 

delay in this case. The delay flouts the public’s interest in the expedient resolution of 

litigation and prevents the Court from controlling its docket. It has caused prejudice to 

Defendants’ ability to timely defend this case. Lesser sanctions such as warnings have 

proved inadequate, and the Court concludes that other alternative sanctions such as fines 

or preclusion of claims or defenses would be futile.

The Court finds that Local Rule 83.11(b) provides Dia notice that actions including 

dismissal without prejudice may be taken if he failed to update his address with the 

Court. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding a similar local 

rule requiring parties appearing pro se to maintain an updated address “itself provided 

notice” of the dismissal action taken by the court). Moreover, “additional prior notice of 

imminent dismissal would be a futile gesture,” given Dia’s previous non-compliance and 

that the Court’s prior mailings have all been returned as undeliverable. Id. “A party, not 

the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his 

mailing address.” Id.

Accordingly, the Court now finds dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB Document 51 Filed 11/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB

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

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

ECF No. 43. Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions is therefore denied. ECF 

No. 33. However, Plaintiff’s continued non-compliance with Orders of this Court 

warrants dismissal of this case without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: November 9, 2020 __________________________________

HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02676-BEN-RBB Document 51 Filed 11/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6