Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01093/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01093-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin William Johnson
Plaintiff
Spearman
Defendant

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN WILLIAM JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPEARMAN,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-1093 JAM KJN P

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 16, 2020, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s 

amended complaint. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 

On April 10, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of nonopposition to the pending motion within thirty days. In that same order, plaintiff was advised of 

the requirements for filing an opposition to the pending motion and that failure to oppose such a 

motion would be deemed as consent to have the: (a) pending motion granted; (b) action 

dismissed for lack of prosecution; and (c) action dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with these rules and a court order. Plaintiff was also informed that failure to file an opposition 

would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

////

Case 2:19-cv-01093-JAM-KJN Document 27 Filed 05/19/20 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

The thirty-day period has now expired and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order.

Previously, on December 12, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to promptly move to conduct 

limited discovery to identify the defendants named as John Does 1 to 4; plaintiff failed to do so.

“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. 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, 963 F.2d 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 strongly support dismissal 

of this action. The action has been pending for almost one year, and defendant has filed a motion 

to dismiss that is well-taken. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and the court’s 

April 10, 2020 order 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. 

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

plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, also favors dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the 

motion prevents defendant from addressing plaintiff’s substantive opposition, and would delay 

resolution of this action, thereby causing defendant to incur additional time and expense. 

The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The court has 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. 

The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, weighs 

against dismissal of this action as a sanction. However, for the reasons set forth above, the first, 

Case 2:19-cv-01093-JAM-KJN Document 27 Filed 05/19/20 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

second, third, and fifth factors strongly support dismissal. Under the circumstances of this case, 

those factors outweigh the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. See

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263.

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

dismissed without 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 thirty 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 response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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: May 19, 2020

/john1093.mtd.nop

Case 2:19-cv-01093-JAM-KJN Document 27 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 3