DeJohnette v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 34

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Action for Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Compy with a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 02/14/2019. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 3/4/2019. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CERRON T. DEJOHNETTE,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
O. GONZALEZ, et al,
Defendants.

1:17-cv-00696 DAD-JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER
(Doc. 30)
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

On April 18, 2018, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust

18

administrative remedies. Following plaintiff’s repeated failure to file an opposition, the Court

19

issued findings and recommendations to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute and failure to

20

comply with a court order. (Doc. 30.) Although plaintiff failed to file timely objections, two

21

recent notices of change of address filed by him suggested that he did not receive recent court

22

orders, and therefore the Court withdrew the findings and recommendations and granted plaintiff

23

additional time to file an opposition. Plaintiff has again failed to file an opposition or otherwise

24

respond to the Court.

25

“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali

26

v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure,

27

even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1986).
In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court has considered the
five factors set forth in Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules
has impeded the expeditious resolution of the instant litigation and has burdened the court’s
docket, consuming scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which plaintiff demonstrates
no intention to pursue. Although public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits,
plaintiff’s failure to oppose the pending motion has precluded the court from doing so. In
addition, defendants are prejudiced by the inability to reply to opposition. Finally, the court has
repeatedly advised plaintiff of the requirements under the Local Rules and granted ample
additional time to oppose the pending motion, all to no avail. The court finds no suitable
alternative to dismissal of this action.
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
Dated:
24

February 14, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2