(PC) Douglas v. Surineni

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 LASANCE DOUGLAS, No. 2:23-cv-0985-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 DEEPTHI SURINEI, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel in this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 6, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF 19 No. 26.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion for summary judgment. 20 When plaintiff initiated this action, the court informed him that motions would be briefed 21 pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) which requires a written response. (ECF No. 3-1 at 1.) In addition, 22 by order filed May 19, 2025, the court reminded plaintiff about this requirement and gave 23 plaintiff a further opportunity to respond. (ECF No. 28.) Specifically, the court ordered plaintiff 24 to file a response to the pending motion or face dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule 25 of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Id. at 2.) The additional time granted for plaintiff to oppose the motion 26 has expired, and plaintiff has not opposed the motion or otherwise responded to the court. 27 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that 28 power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City 1 |} of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). In determining whether to dismiss an action, 2 || the court considers several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 3 || (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 4 | policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 5 || sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 The court has considered the factors set forth above and finds they favor dismissal. 7 | Plaintiffs failure to comply with the court’s orders and the Local Rules suggests plaintiff has 8 | abandoned this action. However, this case cannot proceed without plaintiff's participation. Thus, 9 || there is no suitable alternative to dismissal. 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign a district court judge to this 11 | matter; and 12 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. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26) 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 seven days after service of the objections. The parties 23 || are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 24 || the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 | Dated: June 17, 2025 □□ I / dle ae 26 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 8, dougo98s.41b.f