Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01539/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01539-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

George Abarah, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

City of Scottsdale Police Department, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV10-1539 PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On July 6, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 44. Pro 

se Plaintiff has filed no response, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv. 

56.1(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). On September 26, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a 

response by October 14, 2011. Doc. 45. Plaintiff has not complied.1

 

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part: 

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported 

as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon 

the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s 

pleading, but the adverse party’s response . . . must set forth 

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If 

the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if 

appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (emphasis added); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-

23 (1986) (holding that summary judgment is appropriate against a party who “fails to 

 

1 Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i), “such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion.”

Case 2:10-cv-01539-DGC Document 47 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s 

case”); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) 

(“When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do 

more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”). 

 Defendants’ arguments as to unlawful arrest, Section 1983 excessive force, assault 

and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation are persuasive in 

the absence of Plaintiff’s opposition. The Court will grant Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment because the undisputed evidence offered in support of the motion 

“show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [Defendants are] 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 

322-23. 

 In the alternative, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining claims against 

Defendants for failure to comply with the Court’s order and for lack of prosecution. The 

Ninth Circuit has developed “a five-part ‘test’ to determine whether a dismissal sanction 

is just: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation; (2) the court’s 

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 

drastic sanctions.’” Valley Eng’rs, Inc. v. Electric Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (quoting Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also 

Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). “[W]here a court order is 

violated, factors 1 and 2 support sanctions and 4 cuts against case dispositive sanctions, 

so 3 and 5 . . . are decisive.” Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057. Factor 5 “involves 

consideration of three subparts: whether the court explicitly discussed alternative 

sanctions, whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the 

possibility of dismissal.” Id. 

 Considering this five-factor test, the Court concludes that dismissal is an 

appropriate sanction in this case. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

Case 2:10-cv-01539-DGC Document 47 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket require action when a plaintiff 

refuses to prosecute a case. In addition, Defendants will be subject to prejudice if a 

sanction of dismissal is not imposed. Defendants are unable to move forward with their 

defense of this case when Plaintiff refuses to respond to their motion and the Court’s 

order. Finally, the Court has considered less drastic sanctions, but none is apparent. 

Plaintiff has not responded to the motion for summary judgment and has refused to 

comply with the Court’s order. The Court specifically stated the actions Plaintiff must 

take to defend against the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45). Plaintiff failed to 

comply, and the motion has been pending for more than three months. The Court 

concludes that the appropriate resolution of this problem is to dismiss Plaintiff’s case. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 44) is granted as stated 

above. 

2. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 31st day of October, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-01539-DGC Document 47 Filed 10/31/11 Page 3 of 3