Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02562/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02562-18/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

STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2562 MCE EFB P

vs.

CAL A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 5, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On June

10, 2005, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion pursuant to Rule

56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.

1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409,

411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). That order also informed plaintiff of the requirements for filing an

opposition to the pending motion and that failure to oppose such a motion might be deemed a

waiver of opposition to the motion. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition.

////

////

Case 2:03-cv-02562-MCE -EFB Document 95 Filed 07/27/07 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

On May 21, 2007, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of nonopposition to the pending motion within twenty days. In the same order, plaintiff was informed

that failure to file an opposition would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The twenty-day period has expired and plaintiff has not

responded to the court’s order. 

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an

action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for

failure to comply with a court order the district court must weigh five factors including: ‘(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.’” Ferdik, at 1260-61 (quoting 

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court has considered the

five factors set forth in Ferdik. Here, as in Ferdik, the first two factors support dismissal of this

action. The action has been pending for three-and-a-half years and has reached the stage, set by

the court’s July 28, 2006, scheduling order, for resolution of dispositive motions and, if

necessary, preparation for pretrial conference and jury trial. See Scheduling Order, filed July 28,

2006. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and the court’s order, specifically the

May 21, 2007, order directing an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, suggests that

he has abandoned this action and that further time spent by the court thereon will consume scarce

judicial resources in addressing litigation which plaintiff demonstrates no intention to pursue. 

The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The court has twice advised plaintiff of the

requirements under the Local Rules and granted ample additional time to oppose the pending

motion, all to no avail. The court finds no suitable alternative to dismissal of this action. 

Case 2:03-cv-02562-MCE -EFB Document 95 Filed 07/27/07 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

Under the circumstances of this case, the third factor, prejudice to defendants from

plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, should be given little weight. Plaintiff’s failure to

oppose the motion does not put defendants at any disadvantage in this action. See Ferdik, at

1262. However, defendants would be “disadvantaged” by a continuance and still further delay

of an action plaintiff appears to have abandoned. The fourth factor, public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits, weighs against dismissal. However, for the reasons set forth

above, the first, second, and fifth factors strongly support dismissal and the third factor alone is

not sufficient to warrant still more delay. Under the circumstances, the several factors favoring

dismissal outweigh the general policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. See Ferdik,

at 1263.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

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 twenty 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: July 27, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-02562-MCE -EFB Document 95 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 3