Ciro Gonzalez v. Matthew Pennell, et al.

D. Nevada

Ciro Gonzalez v. Matthew Pennell, et al.

DecidedDecember 3, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-00500

StatusUnknown

This text of Ciro Gonzalez v. Matthew Pennell, et al. (Ciro Gonzalez v. Matthew Pennell, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ciro Gonzalez v. Matthew Pennell, et al., (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 CIRO GONZALEZ, Case No. 3:24-cv-00500-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 MATTHEW PENNELL, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Ciro Gonzalez sued public defenders Matthew Pennell, Kirsty Pickering, 13 Nestor Marcial, Lauren Gorman, and private investigator Nicholas Czegledi under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1-1.) On February 13, 2025, the Court adopted United States 15 Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4 (“R&R”)), 16 dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). (ECF No. 5.) The Court also granted 17 Plaintiff leave to amend within 30 days of the entry of the order. That deadline expired 18 and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise 19 respond. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 25 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 26 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 27 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 28 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 2 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 3 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 4 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 5 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 6 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 8 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 9 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 10 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 11 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 12 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 13 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 15 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 16 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 17 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 18 does not satisfy this factor). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal 19 before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 20 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff has not filed an 21 amended complaint, and the circumstances here do not indicate that Plaintiff needs 22 additional time to file an amended complaint. Moreover, the Court notes that Judge 23 Denney’s R&R, which was adopted by the Court, recommended dismissing the Complaint 24 without prejudice. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 27 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 28 prejudice based on the Court’s adoption of Judge Denney’s R&R (ECF Nos. 4, 5) and 1 || Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court's February 13, 2 || 2025 order. 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 4 || If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 5 DATED THIS 3 Day of December 2025. MIRANDA M. DU 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 CIRO GONZALEZ, Case No. 3:24-cv-00500-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 MATTHEW PENNELL, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Plaintiff Ciro Gonzalez sued public defenders Matthew Pennell, Kirsty Pickering, 13 Nestor Marcial, Lauren Gorman, and private investigator Nicholas Czegledi under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1-1.) On February 13, 2025, the Court adopted United States 15 Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4 (“R&R”)), 16 dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). (ECF No. 5.) The Court also granted 17 Plaintiff leave to amend within 30 days of the entry of the order. That deadline expired 18 and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise 19 respond. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 22 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 23 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 24 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court 25 order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 26 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 27 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 28 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 2 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 3 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 4 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re 5 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 6 Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 8 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s 9 claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 10 because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing 11 a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 12 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 13 cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 14 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can 15 be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider 16 dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 17 that considering less drastic alternatives before the party has disobeyed a court order 18 does not satisfy this factor). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal 19 before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 20 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff has not filed an 21 amended complaint, and the circumstances here do not indicate that Plaintiff needs 22 additional time to file an amended complaint. Moreover, the Court notes that Judge 23 Denney’s R&R, which was adopted by the Court, recommended dismissing the Complaint 24 without prejudice. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they 27 weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without 28 prejudice based on the Court’s adoption of Judge Denney’s R&R (ECF Nos. 4, 5) and 1 || Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court's February 13, 2 || 2025 order. 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 4 || If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a new case. 5 DATED THIS 3 Day of December 2025. MIRANDA M. DU 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In Re Phenylpropanolamine (Ppa) Products Liability Litigation, Shantell Allen, on Behalf of Allen, Vera v. Bayer Corporation, Leon Anderson, Jr. v. Bayer Corporation, Leslie Ackel v. Bayer Corporation, Bridgett Arrington v. Bayer Corporation, Calvin McGriggs v. Delaco Company, Betty Clinton v. Delaco Company, Donna Sasseen v. Ide Interstate Inc., Elizabeth Page v. Bayer Corporation, Marie Riley v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Keva K. Alford, on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Henry Dexter, and Eddie Bullock v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Bobby Holmes v. Bayer Corporation, Melody McDaniel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Samantha Samuels v. Bayer Corporation

460 F.3d 1217 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Ætna Life Ins. v. Bundscho

12 F.2d 522 (Seventh Circuit, 1926)

Henderson v. Duncan

779 F.2d 1421 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ciro Gonzalez v. Matthew Pennell, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciro-gonzalez-v-matthew-pennell-et-al-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack