(PC) Barnes v. Brunner ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, No. 2: 18-cv-2449 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. BRUNNER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2019, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the 19 grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. On October 3, 2018, the court 20 advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment based on 21 plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 22 Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and 23 Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). 24 On August 1, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non- 25 opposition to the pending motion within thirty days. In that same order, plaintiff was advised of 26 the requirements for filing an opposition to the pending motion and that failure to oppose such a 27 motion would be deemed as consent to have the: (a) pending motion granted; (b) action 28 dismissed for lack of prosecution; and (c) action dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to comply 1 with these rules and a court order. Plaintiff was also informed that failure to file an opposition 2 would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 The thirty days period has now expired and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s 5 order. 6 “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an 7 action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 8 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a 9 court order the district court must weigh five factors including: ‘(1) the public's interest in 10 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 11 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 12 and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (quoting 13 Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 14 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 15 In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court has considered the 16 five factors set forth in Ferdik. Here, as in Ferdik, the first two factors strongly support dismissal 17 of this action. The action has been pending for one year and has reached the stage for resolution 18 of the issue of administrative exhaustion. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and 19 the court’s August 1, 2019 order suggests that he has abandoned this action and that further time 20 spent by the court thereon will consume scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which 21 plaintiff demonstrates no intention to pursue. 22 Under the circumstances of this case, the third factor, prejudice to defendants from 23 plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, also favors dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the 24 motion prevents defendants from addressing plaintiff’s substantive opposition, and would delay 25 resolution of this action, thereby causing defendants to incur additional time and expense. 26 The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The court has advised plaintiff of the requirements 27 under the Local Rules and granted ample additional time to oppose the pending motion, all to no 28 avail. The court finds no suitable alternative to dismissal of this action. 1 The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, weighs 2 | against dismissal of this action as a sanction. However, for the reasons set forth supra, the first, 3 | second, third, and fifth factors strongly support dismissal. Under the circumstances of this case, 4 | those factors outweigh the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. See 5 | Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263. 6 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 7 | dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 10 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 13 | objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 14 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 15 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 | Dated: September 5, 2019 " Aectl Aharon 18 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 | Barn2449.fr 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28