Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01622/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01622-1/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

1Documents not to be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the

U.S. mail. If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendant, then

documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the defendant. 

Every document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se)

must include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to

defendant or his attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and

(c). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK A. ARNOLD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1622 FCD GGH P

vs.

WALLY LAFFAYETTE,

Defendant. ORDER &

 / FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On June 3, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations,

filed on May 18, 2005. That document was not served on defendant. Plaintiff has been

repeatedly advised that every document submitted to the court for consideration must be served

on defendant.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; see orders, filed on August 18, 2003, September 22, 2003,

Case 2:02-cv-01622-FCD-GGH Document 77 Filed 06/14/05 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

 Even applying the mailbox rule, wherein plaintiff’s opposition would be deemed filed as

of April 21, 2005, the opposition was filed untimely.

3

 In the order directing service filed April 11, 2003, the court stated that “[i]f plaintiff

does not serve and file a written opposition to the motion [for summary judgment] or a request to

postpone consideration of defendants’ motion, the court may consider the failure to act as a

waiver of opposition to defendant’s motion.” 

2

March 17, 2004. 

On May 18, 2005, the undersigned recommended granting defendants’ March 14,

2005 motion for summary judgment for plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, alternatively

finding that the motion had merit. However, the court’s most recent review indicates that

plaintiff did file an opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment on April 27, 2005,

albeit he once again did not serve the motion and the opposition was untimely.2 

Because the court’s May 18, 2005 Findings and Recommendations were

predicated largely on plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment

altogether, and even though the opposition plaintiff did file was defective as both untimely and

unserved,3 as noted, the court will vacate those Findings and Recommendations.

Instead, the court will recommend dismissal of this action for plaintiff’s repeated

failure to comply with court orders, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rule 11-110. In

this court’s order, filed on August 18, 2003, plaintiff was advised that he “must serve any future

document filed in this court in this action upon defendant and must include a proper certificate of

service with such filing; failure to do so may result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed on that ground alone....” In the court’s September 22, 2003 order, plaintiff was

directed to serve a copy of his opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss within 15 days and

informed: “Failure to do will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rule 11-110 for plaintiff’s repeated failure to obey a court

order.” [Emphasis in original.] In the order filed on March 17, 2004, plaintiff was warned that

his “failure to properly serve any future filing will result in any such filing being disregarded and

Case 2:02-cv-01622-FCD-GGH Document 77 Filed 06/14/05 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

may result in a recommendation of dismissal, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 41(b) and Local Rule 11-

110.” 

Notwithstanding the court’s repeated admonitions, plaintiff has subsequently 

failed to properly serve upon defendant his belated opposition to a motion for summary judgment

motion and his pending June 3, 2005 objections. The undersigned will now invoke the sanction

that plaintiff has, almost unremittingly, invited and will recommend dismissal of this action for

plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with orders of this court, the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules, despite the many opportunities afforded him to do so. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the May 18, 2005 Findings and

Recommendations are vacated.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b) and Local Rule 11-110.

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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 6/14/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

arno1622.ofr 

Case 2:02-cv-01622-FCD-GGH Document 77 Filed 06/14/05 Page 3 of 3