Butler v. Classification Deputy

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 24, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00690
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 STEPHON BUTLER, Case No. 22-cv-690-MMA (DEB)

13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 v. MOTION TO DISMISS

15 SONIA L. MANNING, Facility [Doc. No. 16] Commander, Vista Detention Facility, et 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff Stephon Butler, a California inmate proceeding pro se, brings this action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of San Diego, former San Diego County 22 Sheriff Anthony Ray, and Commander Sonia L. Manning (collectively, “Defendants”), 23 alleging a claim for cruel and unusual punishment. See Doc. No. 10 (“First Amended 24 Complaint”). On January 1, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First 25 Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. 26 No. 16. The Court set the motion for hearing on February 27, 2023, meaning that 27 Plaintiff was required to file a response in opposition no later than February 13, 2023. 28 See CivLR 7.1.e.2 (stating that “each party each party opposing a motion . . . must file | || that opposition or statement of non-opposition with the Clerk and serve the movant or the 2 ||movant’s attorney not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed 3 ||hearing.”). Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition brief or statement of non-opposition 4 ||in response to Defendants’ motion. 5 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may properly grant an unopposed 6 || motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not 7 require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran, 8 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides: “If an opposing 9 || party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.¢.2, that 10 || failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by 11 court.” As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss 12 based upon Plaintiff's failure to respond and chooses to do so here. 13 Generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See Hernandez 14 || v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move 15 || forward toward resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his or her 16 complaint against a Rule 12 motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ 17 || unopposed motion to dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claim without prejudice. The 18 || Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending deadlines and close 19 || this case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 || Dated: March 24, 2023 22 Maite lu - hipllr 23 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28