Shaun Darnell Garland v. Charlie Hughes

Filing 58

Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply With Court Orders by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 6/3/2015. (dts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-6574-FMO (KK)

Title

Shaun Darnell Garland v. Charlie Hughes

Present: The
Honorable

Date

May 20, 2015

Kenly Kiya Kato, United States Magistrate Judge

Deb Taylor

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be
Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply With Court Orders

I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 25, 2014, Plaintiff Shaun Darnell Garland, a state prisoner proceeding in
forma pauperis, filed a First Amended Complaint against sole defendant Charlie Hughes
(“Defendant”). ECF Docket No. (“dkt.”) 31. On August 8, 2014, the Court issued a Case
Management and Scheduling Order requiring, inter alia, that Plaintiff file an opposition
to any substantive motion within 30 calendar days after service of the motion. (Dkt. 34).
On April 7, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”).
(Dkt. 49).
It has been over 30 days since the instant Motion was filed. As of this date,
Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to the Motion.
II.
DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may dismiss an action with
prejudice for lack of prosecution or for failure to comply with any court order. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b). Citing Rule 41(b), district courts have often dismissed actions where a
plaintiff fails to file an opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss or a motion for
summary judgment. See, e.g., Brandon v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t, No. CV
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-6574-FMO (KK)

Date

Title

May 20, 2015

Shaun Darnell Garland v. Charlie Hughes

12-8288-JSL (E), 2013 WL 2423173 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2013) (dismissal for failure to
prosecute after plaintiff failed to file an opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss);
Parrish v. Traquina, No. CIV S-05-190-LKK-KJM-P, 2008 WL 906367 (E.D. Cal. Mar.
31, 2008) (dismissal for failure to prosecute after plaintiff failed to file an opposition to
defendants’ motion for summary judgment); Williams v. Woodford, No. CIV S-06-0348
LKK-KJM-P, 2008 WL 73159 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2008) (dismissal for failure to prosecute
after plaintiff failed to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment pending before the Court, thus, failing to comply with the Court’s August 8,
2014 Order. Consequently, under Rule 41(b), the Court may properly dismiss the instant
action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. However,
before dismissing this action, the Court will afford Plaintiff one final opportunity to
explain his failure to respond to the pending motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this
action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with court orders.
Plaintiff shall have up to and including June 3, 2015 to respond to this Order. Plaintiff is
cautioned that his failure to timely file a response to this Order will be deemed by the
Court as consent to the dismissal of this action with prejudice.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2