Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01992/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01992-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:2674 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

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 - 11cv1992

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYKAL S. RYAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11 CV 1992 MMA (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. No. 6]

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Currently before the Court is Defendant United States of America’s motion to dismiss

Plaintiff Mykal Ryan’s complaint, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. For the reasons set

forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

On August 30, 2011, Plaintiff Mykal S. Ryan initiated this action against individual

Defendant Timothy C. Stutler, alleging Mr. Stutler and his agents falsified information, fabricated

evidence, and otherwise endeavored to obstruct several proceedings initiated by Plaintiff in the

Southern District of California. [Doc. No. 1.] On October 26, 2011, the Court substituted the

United States of America (“Defendant”) in place and stead of AUSA Stutler, pursuant to the

Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988. [Doc. No. 5.] 

On November 1, 2011, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, or in the

alternative, for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 6.] The Court set Defendant’s motion for hearing

on December 27, 2011. Plaintiff did not file an opposition, but instead, on December 19 filed a

Case 3:11-cv-01992-MMA-RBB Document 11 Filed 02/15/12 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 - 11cv1992

request to stay the proceedings for 150 days to provide him additional time to oppose Defendant’s

motion. [Doc. No. 8, ¶6.] 

Plaintiff argued he needed additional time to oppose Defendant’s motion because he

suffers from “major depression” caused by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which has

prevented him from working on his opposition. [Id. ¶¶2-3.] Plaintiff was diagnosed with PTSD in

August 2005 after serving twenty months in Iraq as an Army soldier. [Id. ¶3.] The Court granted

Plaintiff additional time to oppose the pending motion, and instructed him to file an opposition no

later than February 6, 2012. [Doc. No. 9.] To date, no opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION

The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to

dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a

motion for failure to respond. See generally, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Local Civil Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides that “[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers in the manner

required by Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of that

motion or other ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendant’s

motion to dismiss on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to respond, and it chooses to do so. 

Generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See, e.g., Hernandez v.

City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move forward

toward resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his case against dispositive

motions. Thus, this policy lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case

toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes or completely prevents progress in

that direction. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994). In addition, management of

this Court’s docket is of vital significance to the proper and timely resolution of matters before it. 

Consequently, granting Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss, which has been pending since

November 2011, facilitates the Court’s management of its docket.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01992-MMA-RBB Document 11 Filed 02/15/12 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 - 11cv1992

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to

dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to

close the case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 15, 2012 

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01992-MMA-RBB Document 11 Filed 02/15/12 Page 3 of 3