(PC) Rivas v. Williams

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 11, 2021·No. 1:19-cv-00328·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL J. RIVAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00328-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 14 WILLIAMS, et al., (ECF No. 40) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Daniel J. Rivas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Williams 20 and Garcia for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth 21 Amendment. All parties have consented to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF 22 Nos. 6, 24.) For the reasons that follow, the Court orders that this action be dismissed, with 23 prejudice. 24 I. Background 25 On February 18, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground 26 that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his available administrative remedies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 27 (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for 28 summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 1 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF 2 No. 37-1.) Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition was therefore due on or before 3 March 15, 2021. 4 On March 30, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one (21) 5 days why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 6 (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff was provided the opportunity to comply with the Court’s order by filing 7 an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was 8 warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this matter, with 9 prejudice, for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has failed to submit any response to 10 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and has not otherwise communicated with the Court. 11 II. Discussion 12 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 13 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 14 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 15 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 16 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 17 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 18 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 19 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 20 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 21 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 22 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 23 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 24 (1) the public’s interest in expeditions resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 25 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 26 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 27 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). 28 /// 1 Here, the action has been pending for more than two years, and Plaintiff’s response or 2 opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is overdue. Plaintiff is obligated to 3 comply with the Local Rules and was informed by Defendants of the need to oppose a motion for 4 summary judgment. Despite Plaintiff’s duty to comply with all applicable rules and Defendants’ 5 notice, Plaintiff did not file a proper opposition. Plaintiff remained incommunicative after an 6 order from this Court to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. The Court cannot 7 effectively manage its docket if a party ceases litigating the case. Thus, both the first and second 8 factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action. 9 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, because 10 a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 11 action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Because public policy favors 12 disposition on the merits, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan v. 13 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party 14 whose responsibility is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct 15 impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 16 Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006). 17 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the Court’s order will result in 18 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives requirement.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 19 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s March 30, 2021 order to 20 show cause expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would 21 result in the dismissal of this matter, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 40, p. 2.) 22 Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal of this action could result from his 23 noncompliance. At this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court which would 24 constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further unnecessary 25 expenditure of its scarce resources. Although Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis in this 26 action, he remains incarcerated and unresponsive to the Court’s orders, making monetary 27 sanctions of little use. Further, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect 28 given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating this case. 1 In summary, Plaintiff is no longer prosecuting this action, and the Court cannot afford to 2 expend resources resolving unopposed dispositive motions in a case which Plaintiff is no longer 3 prosecuting. 4 III. Conclusion and Order 5 Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and this action is 6 HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court 7 order.