Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00989/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00989-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ledbetter
Defendant
Aaron D. Seymour
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON D. SEYMOUR,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEDBETTER,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00989-JLT-CDB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY 

ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

14-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Aaron D. Seymour is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 16, 2024, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 35.) 

On November 25, 2024, Defendant timely filed a motion for summary judgment 

challenging the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 36.) 

On December 27, 2024, when more than 21 days passed without a response from Plaintiff, 

the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) in Writing Why Sanctions Should Not Be 

Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition. (Doc. 38.) 

Plaintiff was directed to file a written response to the OSC, or alternatively, to file an opposition 

or statement of non-opposition to the summary judgment motion within 14 days. (Id. at 3.) More 

than 14 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the OSC. 

Case 1:22-cv-00989-JLT-CDB Document 40 Filed 01/17/25 Page 1 of 5
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

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 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.” 

Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 

that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 

1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 

B. Analysis

Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion 

was due December 16, 2024, plus time for mailing. See Local Rule 230(l). Further, Plaintiff has 

failed to respond to the OSC. His response was due January 10, 2025, plus time for mailing. 

(Doc. 38 at 2-3.) There are no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure 

to obey the Court’s Local Rules and orders, and his related failure to prosecute this action. Thus, 

the first and second factors — the expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to 

manage its docket — weigh in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440.

Case 1:22-cv-00989-JLT-CDB Document 40 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 5
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

The third factor also weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises 

from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 

F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, Defendant engaged in the discovery process and filed a 

timely motion for summary judgment, asserting there is no triable issue of material fact 

concerning Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation and excessive force. Plaintiff has failed to respond to 

the pending motion and to the OSC concerning his failure to do so. Hence, a presumption of 

injury has arisen from Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. Thus, the third

factor — a risk of prejudice to the defendant — weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 

1440. 

The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 

disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 

“this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 

disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 

F.3d at 1228. Plaintiff has not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. He has 

failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the pending motion for summary judgment, failed to respond to the OSC, and has 

stopped communicating with the Court. Therefore, the fourth factor — the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s orders or rules will 

result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d 

at 1262. Initially, in the First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case 

issued August 11, 2022, Plaintiff was advised as follows: “In litigating this action, the parties 

must comply with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), and the 

Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”), as 

modified by this Order. Failure to so comply will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which 

may include dismissal of the case. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (See Doc. 5 at 1.) That 

Order further advised: “Absent good cause, all Court deadlines are strictly enforced.” (Id. at 5.) 

Second, Defendant’s summary judgment motion included a Rand warning, and advised Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-00989-JLT-CDB Document 40 Filed 01/17/25 Page 3 of 5
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

4

that if he did not submit “his own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate may 

be entered against” him and that his case may “be dismissed and there will be no trial.” (Doc. 36-

2 at 2.) And third, the OSC issued December 27, 2024, warned as follows: “Any failure by 

Plaintiff to timely respond to this Order may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for a failure to obey court orders and a failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 38 at 3, 

emphasis in original.) Thus, the undersigned finds Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal 

could result from his noncompliance with this Court’s Local Rules and orders. Thus, the fifth 

factor — the availability of less drastic sanctions —weighs in favor of dismissal. Ferdik, 963 F.2d 

at 1262; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

In sum, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules and orders, and in 

doing so, has failed to prosecute this action. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. This Court declines to 

expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, 

without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s Local Rules and order, and to 

prosecute this action. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 

leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 

Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the 

exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 

reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be 

disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result

Case 1:22-cv-00989-JLT-CDB Document 40 Filed 01/17/25 Page 4 of 5
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

5

in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00989-JLT-CDB Document 40 Filed 01/17/25 Page 5 of 5