Williams v. Yanez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNATHON WILLIAMS, Case No.: 20cv738-CAB-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 16] 14 YANEZ, YOUNG, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On September 15, 2020, Defendants E. Yanez and A. Young filed a motion to 18 dismiss the complaint. [Doc. No. 16.] More than four months have passed, and Plaintiff 19 Johnathon Williams has not filed an opposition. 20 Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or 21 statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. Failure 22 to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” Civ. 23 Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, 24 including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 25 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under 26 local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the 27 motion). Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district 28 court “weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 1 || litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 2 || defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the 3 || availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. 4 || Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)). That plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this 5 || action does not excuse his failure to follow the rules of procedure that govern other 6 litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow 7 || the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). 8 Here, Defendants attached a proof of service to their motion, signaling that 9 || Plaintiff was served at the address provided on the face of his complaint. [Doc. No. 16 at 10 || 10.] Moreover, Plaintiff was provided adequate time to prepare a response. On 11 ||September 17, 2020, the Court issued a minute order that gave a briefing schedule for the 12 || motion and informed Plaintiff that his opposition was due on October 23, 2020. [Doc. 13 18.] On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 60-day extension of time 14 file an opposition [Doc. No. 19], which request was granted [Doc. No. 20]. Plaintiff 15 || was given until December 23, 2020 to file an opposition. /d. It is now more than one 16 month since the extended due date and Plaintiff still has not filed an opposition. Thus, 17 ||the Court finds that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the 18 || court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the defendant” all weigh 19 |/in favor of granting the motion to dismiss. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Accordingly, the 20 || majority of the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 21 In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to 22 dismiss [Doc. No. 16] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the complaint is 23 || DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 24 Dated: January 25, 2021 € Z 25 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 26 United States District Judge 27 28