(PC)Henderson v. Hailie ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERBERT HENDERSON, No. 2:21-cv-0790 WBS KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DR. HAILIE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 21, 2023, defendant filed a motion for summary 19 judgment and provided plaintiff notice of the requirements for opposing the motion from Rand v. 20 Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). (ECF No. 33.) Previously, the court 21 informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal 22 Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand, 154 F.3d at 957, and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 23 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 24 On April 3, 2023, 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 dismissed 28 for lack of prosecution; and (c) action dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with these 1 rules and a court order. Plaintiff was also informed that failure to file an opposition would result 2 in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 3 Civil Procedure. 4 The thirty day period expired, and plaintiff did not respond to the court’s order. 5 “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an 6 action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 7 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a 8 court order the district court must weigh five factors including: ‘(1) the public’s interest in 9 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 10 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 11 and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (quoting 12 Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 13 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 14 In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court considered the five 15 factors set forth in Ferdik. Here, as in Ferdik, the first two factors strongly support dismissal of 16 this action. The action has been pending for two years and reached the stage, set by the court’s 17 October 20, 2022 scheduling order, for resolution of dispositive motions and, if necessary, 18 preparation for pretrial conference and jury trial. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 19 the Local Rules and the court’s April 3, 2023 order suggests that he abandoned this action and 20 that further time spent by the court thereon will consume scarce judicial resources in addressing 21 litigation which 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 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. ] 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. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 || Dated: May 11, 2023 Aectl Aharon 18 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 /hend0790.nop. fi 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28