Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01365/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01365-8/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOGUERAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01365-DAD-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A 

COURT ORDER

(Docs. 50, 52)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiff, Eugenio Luis Nogueras, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 21, 2012. Plaintiff 

is proceeding on a claim for damages against Defendant Dileo for violating his rights under the 

Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

On December 8, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to 

discovery. (Doc. 50.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as 

required by Local Rule 230(l). On April 6, 2016, an order issued requiring Plaintiff to file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel within twenty-one 

days. (Doc. 52.) On August 6, 2015, the Second Information Order issued notifying Plaintiff of 

the requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment and that an opposition must be filed 

within twenty-one days of the date Defendants' filed their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 

18.) More than twenty-one days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or a

statement of non-opposition, or to respond in any way Defendant’s motion to compel discovery 

Case 1:12-cv-01365-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 05/06/16 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

27

28

2

responses or to this Court's order of April 6, 2016. 

Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the 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 "in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, 

where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case." 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); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure 

to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 

order, or failure to comply with local rules, 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 alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; 

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 

46 F.3d at 53.

The Court finds that the public's interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 

Court's interest in managing the docket 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). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, 

Case 1:12-cv-01365-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 05/06/16 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

27

28

3

a Court's warning to a party that the failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal 

satisfies the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court's order requiring Plaintiff to file 

an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff to 

respond to discovery expressly stated in bold that "Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply 

with this order will result dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute." Thus, 

Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal may result from his noncompliance with the Court's 

order.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on 

Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court's order of April 6, 2016, (Doc. 52). 

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 thirty 

(30) 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.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 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: May 5, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01365-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 3