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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?