Gaines v. Brown et al

Filing 104

ORDER ADOPTING 102 Findings and Recommendations Recommending Dismissal of Action, With Prejudice, for Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey Court Order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/20/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)

Case 1:16-cv-01666-DAD-BAM Document 104 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARY LEE GAINES,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

BROWN, et al.,

15
16
17
18

No. 1:16-cv-01666-NONE-BAM (PC)

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY
COURT ORDER
(Doc. No. 102)

Plaintiff Mary Lee Gaines is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

19

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s first

20

amended complaint against defendants Mirelez and Hoehing for deliberate indifference to

21

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

22

On December 16, 2020, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.

23

56. (Doc. No. 92.) Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion

24

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

25

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

26

(Doc. No. 92-1.) Plaintiff was granted three extensions of time to file her opposition. (Doc. Nos.

27

95, 97, 99.) In the order granting plaintiff’s third extension of time, the assigned magistrate judge

28

warned plaintiff that any further requests for extension of this deadline would be subject to a
1

Case 1:16-cv-01666-DAD-BAM Document 104 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 3
1

narrow interpretation of what constitutes good cause. (Doc. No. 99 at 2.) Specifically, the

2

magistrate judge indicated that plaintiff would be required to “describe what attempts she has

3

made to access the law library at her institution of confinement, the result of those attempts, how

4

many times she has successfully accessed the law library, and what specific further research or

5

other acts must be accomplished using law library services before her opposition can be

6

completed and submitted to the Court.” (Id.)

7

On April 26, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for a fourth extension of time to file her

8

opposition. (Doc. No. 100.) Defendants filed an opposition on May 12, 2021. (Doc. No. 101.)

9

Plaintiff did not file a reply.

10

On June 8, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s fourth extension

11

of time and findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this action, with

12

prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 102.) Those

13

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any

14

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) Plaintiff filed

15

objections on June 24, 2021. (Doc. No. 103.)

16

In her objections, plaintiff argues that she should have been granted a fourth extension of

17

time to file her opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion because she is incarcerated

18

in a state prison and has not had access to the prison law library for over a year, since February

19

2019. (Id.) Plaintiff does not address defendants’ contention that she has not requested law

20

library access or PLU status for at least the last sixty days prior to filing her fourth request for

21

extension of time. (See Doc. No. 101-1.)

22

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

23

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

24

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

25

by proper analysis.

26

Accordingly,

27

1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 8, 2021, (Doc. No. 102), are

28

adopted in full;
2

Case 1:16-cv-01666-DAD-BAM Document 104 Filed 07/20/21 Page 3 of 3
1

2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a

2
3

court order; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose

4
5
6
7

of closing the case, terminate all pending motions, and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 20, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3