Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02005/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02005-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY LOPEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-02005-LJO-MJS 

(PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE 

TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 25)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Ola on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim. (ECF No. 

14.)

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on February 5, 2015. (ECF No. 

20.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s

motion, and the time for doing so passed. Local Rule 230(l). Accordingly, on March 17, 

2016, the Court advised Plaintiff of his rights, obligations, and methods for opposing 

Case 1:13-cv-02005-LJO-MJS Document 30 Filed 04/27/15 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

27

28

2

Defendants’ motion, and afforded Plaintiff an additional twenty-one days to file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff was warned that his 

failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition could result in dismissal of 

the action for failure to prosecute.

The twenty-one day deadline passed without Plaintiff either filing an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition, or seeking an extension of time to do so. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the 

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate default or dismissal.” Thompson v. 

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 

on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 

local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for 

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure 

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 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 lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a 

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 

(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. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 

833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

Case 1:13-cv-02005-LJO-MJS Document 30 Filed 04/27/15 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

27

28

3

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 

Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk 

of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of 

injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. 

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public 

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors 

in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, 

at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute a 

satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not 

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions 

of little use.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be 

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. 

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)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) 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 fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02005-LJO-MJS Document 30 Filed 04/27/15 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

27

28

4

Case 1:13-cv-02005-LJO-MJS Document 30 Filed 04/27/15 Page 4 of 4