Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00976/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00976-4/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

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

Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff Howard Lawrence Turner (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against R. 

Cortez for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

I. Background

On July 30, 2015, Defendant R. Cortez filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds 

that: (1) Plaintiff has provided no evidence she was subjectively aware he had a serious medical need,

as required to prove his claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment; (2) Plaintiff 

provided no evidence that she was deliberate indifferent to his medical need; (3) Plaintiff cannot 

establish a causal link between his pain and her actions; and (4) she is entitled to qualified immunity 

HOWARD LAWRENCE TURNER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. CORTEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00976-LJO-BAM PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, 

WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY A 

COURT ORDER

(ECF Nos. 24)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-00976-LJO-BAM Document 28 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

because she acted reasonably and did not violate Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 24-

1.) Concurrent with the motion, Plaintiff was provided with notice of his obligations in opposing a 

motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 24). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 

(9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. As a 

result, on September 1, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition within twenty-one days of service of that order, granting him another opportunity to have 

this matter addressed on the merits. (ECF No. 27.) Pursuant to the Court’s order, Plaintiff’s opposition 

to the motion for summary judgment was due on or before September 25, 2015. Plaintiff filed no 

opposition to the motion and failed to otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

At this time, more than two months have passed since Defendant filed the motion for summary 

judgment, but Plaintiff has failed to submit any opposition to Defendant’s motion in compliance with 

Local Rule 230(l), and has made no response to the Court’s September 1, 2015 order. 

II. Discussion

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . 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 “[i]n 

the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 

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

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 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 complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 

833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

Case 1:13-cv-00976-LJO-BAM Document 28 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 4
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

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Here, the action has been pending over two years, and Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment has been pending for over two months without any response by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is 

obligated to comply with the Local Rules and was informed by Defendant of the need to oppose a 

motion for summary judgment. Despite Plaintiff’s duty to comply with all applicable rules and 

Defendant’s notice, Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition. Nonetheless, the Court permitted Plaintiff 

an opportunity to comply and to prosecute his case by extending the time for his opposition. The 

Court’s effort was met with silence from Plaintiff, and the Court cannot effectively manage its docket 

if a party ceases litigating the case. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

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

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Because public policy favors disposition on 

the merits, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 

(9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move 

a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which 

is the case here. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228.

Finally, the court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s September 1, 2015 order requiring 

Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment expressly stated, “Plaintiff is 

warned that failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for 

failure to prosecute.” (ECF No. 27, pp. 1-2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could 

Case 1:13-cv-00976-LJO-BAM Document 28 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 4
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

result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order. Also, at this stage in the proceedings there is 

little available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma 

pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or 

witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case.

In summary, Plaintiff filed this action but is no longer prosecuting it. The Court cannot afford 

to expend resources resolving unopposed dispositive motions in a case which Plaintiff is no longer 

prosecuting. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY 

RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and for failure 

to obey a court order. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” 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: October 7, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00976-LJO-BAM Document 28 Filed 10/07/15 Page 4 of 4