(PC) Hill v. Newsom

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHAN HILL, No. 2:19-cv-1680 DJC AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 27, 2025, defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions, ECF No. 19 159, and served plaintiff via mail. ECF No. 159-3. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), plaintiff had 20 twenty-one days from the date of service of the motion to file an opposition or statement of no 21 opposition. However, plaintiff did not file an opposition. 22 On July 7, 2025, the court informed plaintiff that pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), “[f]ailure 23 of the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be 24 deemed a waiver of any opposition to granting the motion and may result in the imposition of 25 sanctions.” ECF No. 163 at 1. Plaintiff was warned that “[s]anctions include dismissal for failure 26 to prosecute and for failure to comply with these rules and a court order.” Id. Good cause 27 appearing, the court ordered plaintiff to file within twenty-one days from the date of the filing of 28 the order to file and serve an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the defendants’ motion 1 | for terminating sanctions. Id. Plaintiff was further warned that “[f]ailure to comply with this 2 || order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 3 || prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” Id. at 1-2. 4 The twenty-one-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a response to the 5 || defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions or otherwise responded to the court’s order. In 6 || recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has considered “(1) the 7 || public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 8 | (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 9 || their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 10 | 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot move forward without 11 | plaintiffs participation, the court finds the factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 12 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 13 || dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and all pending 14 || motions (ECF No. 153, 159) be terminated. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 20 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 21 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 22 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 || DATED: August 28, 2025 ~ 24 Chttt0n— Chane ALLISON CLAIRE 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28