Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01576/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01576-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 04-1576 DFL EFB P

vs.

JOSEPH BICK, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations.

On September 1, 2006, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 

On September 18, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition. 

The court granted the motion. On November 15, 2006, plaintiff filed a second motion for an

extension of time. On December 29, 2006, the court granted the motion and gave plaintiff 30

days to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

The 30 days have passed, and plaintiff has not opposed the motion or otherwise

responded to the court’s order.

Failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition

of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

Local Rule 11-110. A responding party’s failure “to file written opposition or to file a statement

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 52 Filed 03/15/07 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

2

of no opposition” to a motion “may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Local Rule 78-

230(m). The fact plaintiff proceeds without counsel does not exempt him from compliance with

the court’s orders, including the order requiring him to file the required opposition. Pagtalunan

v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261-1262 (9th

Cir. 1992); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for pro se

plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address); see also

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1232-33 (9th Cir. 1984) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of

pro se prisoner civil rights actions for failure to prosecute). The court may recommend this

action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if plaintiff disobeys an order or the

Local Rules. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1252 (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing

pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to

comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.

1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of

change of address affirmed). 

 On August 17, 2005, the court advised plaintiff that he must file an opposition to a

motion for summary judgment and of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion for

summary judgment and that failure to comply with the Local Rules might result in a

recommendation of dismissal. The court finds that plaintiff has had more than five months to

file an opposition to defendants’ motion. He should have responded to the court’s December 29,

2006, order by January 30, 2007, but as of the date of these findings and recommendations,

plaintiff has not responded to the December 29, 2006, order. The court finds that plaintiff has

disobeyed this court’s orders, and does not intend to prosecute this action with diligence.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice for lack of prosecution and for repeated failures to comply with court scheduling

orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 11-110. 

////

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 52 Filed 03/15/07 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

3

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 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.” Failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: March 15, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 52 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 3