(PC) Ayala v. Redman

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02186
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN CARLOS GARCIA AYALA, No. 2:21-cv-2186-DJC-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GARY REDMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when he was confined in the 18 Amador County Jail and he proceeds without counsel and in forma pauperis. On March 18, 2025, 19 the defendants filed a motion for sanctions, seeking reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the 20 motion and terminating sanctions, or, in the alternative, an order compelling plaintiff to respond 21 to defendant’s discovery requests. (ECF No. 78.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 22 When plaintiff initiated this action, the court informed him that motions would be briefed 23 pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) which requires a written response. (ECF No. 4-1 at 1.) In addition, 24 by order filed April 23, 2025, the court reminded plaintiff about this requirement and gave 25 plaintiff a further opportunity to respond. (ECF No. 79.) The court ordered plaintiff to file a 26 response to the pending motion or face dismissal of this action for failure to comply with a court 27 order and the Local Rules. (Id. at 2.) The additional time granted has expired, and plaintiff has not 28 complied with the order or otherwise responded to the court. ] “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that 2 || power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City 3 || of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). In determining whether to dismiss an action, 4 || the court considers several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 5 || (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 6 || policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 7 || sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 8 The court has considered the factors set forth above and finds they favor dismissal. 9 | Plaintiffs failure to comply with the court’s orders and the Local Rules suggests plaintiff has 10 || abandoned this action. This case cannot proceed without plaintiff's participation. Thus, the court 11 || finds no suitable alternative to dismissal. 12 In accordance with the above, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 13 1. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 14 183(b). 15 2. Defendants’ motion for sanctions or to compel discovery responses be denied as moot. 16 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 19 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 22 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 23 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 24 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 | Dated: May 30, 2025 □□ I / dle ae 26 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 |] 8, ayal2196.41b.