Hayles v. Wheatherford

Filing 64

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 1/7/2013. It is ORDERED that Clerk assign action to District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; and it is RECOMMENDED that this aciton be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule o f Civil Prodecure 41(b). These Findings and Recommendations are SUBMITTED to District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Within 14 days after being served with Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with Court and serve a copy on all parties. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TROY HAYLES,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

No. 2: 09-cv-3061 JFM (PC)

vs.
DR. ERICA WHEATHERFORD, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

15
/

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 23, 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary

19

judgment. On November 30, 2012, the court issued an order giving plaintiff fourteen days to file

20

an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was instructed that failure to file an

21

opposition would be deemed a statement of non-opposition and would result in a

22

recommendation that the action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

23

To date, plaintiff has not responded to defendants’ motion for summary judgment or the court’s

24

November 30, 2012 order.

25
26

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss
an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
1

1

1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a

2

court order the district court must weigh five factors including: ‘(1) the public's interest in

3

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

4

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

5

and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (quoting

6

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)).

7

In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court has

8

considered the five factors set forth in Ferdik. The first two Ferdik factors strongly support

9

dismissal of this action. The action has been pending for almost four years and has reached the

10

stage for resolution of defendants’ motion for summary judgment which has now been pending

11

for almost two months. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and the court’s

12

November 30, 2012 order suggests that he has abandoned this action and that further time spent

13

by the court thereon will consume scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which

14

petitioner demonstrates no intention to pursue.

15

The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The court granted plaintiff ample additional

16

time to oppose the pending motion to no avail. The court finds no suitable alternative to

17

dismissal of this action.

18

Under the circumstances of this case, the third factor, prejudice to defendants

19

from plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, should be given little weight. Plaintiff’s failure to

20

oppose the motion does not put defendants at any disadvantage in this action. See Ferdik, 963

21

F.2d at 1262. Indeed, defendants would only be “disadvantaged” by a decision by the court to

22

continue an action plaintiff has abandoned. The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition

23

of cases on their merits, weighs against dismissal of this action as a sanction. However, for the

24

reasons set forth supra, the first, second, and fifth factors strongly support dismissal and the third

25

factor does not mitigate against it. Under the circumstances of this case, those factors outweigh

26

the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
2

1

1263.

2
3

Thus, it will be recommended that the action be dismissed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

4

On December 11, 2009, plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (See

5

Dkt. No. 14.) To date, defendants have neither consented nor declined magistrate judge

6

jurisdiction. Thus, a district judge will be assigned to this action.

7
8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to
assign this action to a United States District Judge.

9
10

Furthermore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

11

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

12

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

13

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

14

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

15

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

16

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

17

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

18

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

19

DATED: January 7, 2013.

20
21
22
23
24

14
hayl3061.fsc

25
26
3