Johnson v. North Kern State Prison et al

Filing 51

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending dismissal of action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order 50 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/30/2018. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F&R due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CEDRIC CHESTER JOHNSON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No. 1:16-cv-01371-DAD-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY
A COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 50)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
18

Plaintiff Cedric Chester Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se

19

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action

20

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Speakman, Rocha, Jones, and

21

Kennemer (collectively, “Defendants”) for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth

22

Amendment. For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed,

23

with prejudice.

24

I.

Background

25

On January 5, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26

56. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion

27

for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154

28

F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1988).
1

1

(ECF No. 43-1.)

2

On January 22, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a sixty-day extension of

3

time to respond to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff did not file an

4

opposition or otherwise respond to the Court’s order within the time allotted.

5

On April 2, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-

6

opposition to the motion for summary judgment within twenty-one (21) days of service of that

7

order. (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff was warned that the failure to comply with that order would result

8

in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court

9

order. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has failed to submit any opposition and has not otherwise

10

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

///
2

1

Here, the action has been pending for nearly three years, and Plaintiff’s response or

2

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is a month overdue. Plaintiff is

3

obligated to comply with the Local Rules and was informed by Defendants of the need to oppose

4

a motion for summary judgment. Despite Plaintiff’s duty to comply with all applicable rules and

5

Defendants’ notice, Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition. Plaintiff remained incommunicative

6

after being issued another order by this Court to respond to the pending motion. The Court

7

cannot effectively manage its docket if a party ceases litigating the case. Thus, both the first and

8

second 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 April 2, 2018 order requiring

20

Plaintiff to respond to the motion for summary judgment expressly warned him that the failure to

21

comply with that order would result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to

22

prosecute and failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 50, p. 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate

23

warning that dismissal this action could result from his noncompliance. At this stage in the

24

proceedings there is little available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser

25

sanction while protecting the Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources.

26

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use,

27

and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has

28

ceased litigating this case.
3

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 Recommendation

5

Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY

6

RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and for

7

failure to obey a court order.

8

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

9

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

10

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may

11

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

12

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file

13

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the

14

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.

15

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 30, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4