Hernandez v. Castro ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alejandro Hernandez, No. CV-21-00475-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Jason Castro, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On April 12, 2021, to make clear to Plaintiff that he had to respond to the pending 16 motions to dismiss, the Court sua sponte gave Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to 17 the motions. (Doc. 19). In that Order, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that, “when he fails to 18 timely respond to a motion, when applicable, the Court will deem such failure to respond 19 to be consent to the motion being granted. See L.R.Civ. 7.2(i).” (Id.). 20 Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the three pending motions was April 26, 2021. 21 (Id.). Plaintiff failed to respond to any of the pending motions. 22 Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal. Warren, 601 F.2d at 474 (upholding comparable Dist. Ariz. R. 23 11(g) [renumbered as L.R. Civ. 7.2(i)]). Before dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh several factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 24 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 25 disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986). If 26 the district court does not consider these factors explicitly, we review the record independently to determine whether the district court abused its 27 discretion. Id. at 1424. 28 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995). 1 The Court has considered the Henderson factors and finds that all the factors, except the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, favor granting the motions 3 || consistent with Local Rule Civil 7.2(i) and dismissing this case. The Court warned Plaintiff 4|| this would be the result if he failed to respond. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff's failure to respond in 5 || the face of this warning further supports the application of the Local Rule which allows the || Court to deem Plaintiffs failure to respond to be consent to the motions being granted. 7 Therefore, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the motions to dismiss (Docs. 6, 13, and 18) are granted. 9|| Because these motions include all Defendants in this case, the Clerk of the Court shall enter 10 || judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff accordingly. 11 Dated this 30th day of April, 2021. 12 13 a 3 14 1s James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-