Pedro Camacho-Corona v. Angel Ortiz et al

Filing 43

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS RE: 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 3/31/2015. (dts)

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

EDCV 14-543-VAP (KK)

Title

PEDRO CAMACHO-CORONA V. ANGEL ORTIZ, ET AL.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

March 17, 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 April 2, 2014, Plaintiff Pedro Camacho-Corona, proceeding in forma pauperis
and pro se, filed a Complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971). (ECF
Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 3). The Complaint asserts Eighth Amendment claims against six
defendants: (1) Angel Ortiz, M.D.; (2) Salvador Villalon, M.D.; (3) Lilia Castillo; (4)
Jacqueline Gepulle; (5) Norman Blier; and (6) Gloria Palispis. Compl. at at 3-4. All of
the defendants are sued in their individual capacities. Id. On April 11, 2014, when
ordering service of the Complaint, the Court issued an order advising Plaintiff he was
required to file an opposition to any motions to dismiss or for summary judgment filed by
the defendants. (Dkt. 8).
On November 20, 2014, defendants Castillo, Gepulle, Palispis, and Villalon filed a
Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 24). Plaintiff has failed to file any Opposition to the Motion or
request an extension of time in which to do so.
On November 20, 2014, defendant Blier filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or,
in the alternative, to Dismiss. (Dkt. 25). Plaintiff has failed to file any Opposition to the
Motion or request an extension of time in which to do so.
On January 12, 2015, defendant Ortiz filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 36).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

EDCV 14-543-VAP (KK)

Date

Title

March 17, 2015

PEDRO CAMACHO-CORONA V. ANGEL ORTIZ, ET AL.

Plaintiff has failed to file any Opposition to the Motion or request an extension of time in
which to do so.
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
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 three motions pending before
the Court, thus, failing to comply with the Court’s April 11, 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 three pending motions.
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 March 31, 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