(PC)Ellis v. County of El Dorado et al

Filing 49

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 3/4/2025 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court order and that the 46 Motion for Summary Judgment be denied as moot. Referred to Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. Objections to these Findings and Recommendations due within 14 days of service of these Findings and Recommendations. (Deputy Clerk OML)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PETER JON ELLIS,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 2:22-cv-0823-DJC-JDP (P)

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On December 10, 2024, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 46.

18

Plaintiff failed to timely file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion.

19

Therefore, on February 7, 2025, I ordered plaintiff (1) to show cause why this action should not

20

be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and (2) to file an opposition or statement of non-

21

opposition within twenty-one days. ECF No. 48. I also warned plaintiff that his failure to

22

respond to the order would constitute a failure to comply with a court order and would result in

23

dismissal of this case. Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause, and the time to do

24

so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal is warranted.

25

The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that

26

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty.,

27

216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to

28

comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the
1

1

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”).

2

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to

3

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54

4

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

5

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended

6

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to

7

comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.

8

U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court

9

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of

10

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

11

In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to

12

comply with court orders, I have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

13

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;

14

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less

15

drastic alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted).

16

Plaintiff has failed to respond to both defendant’s motion and a court order directing him

17

to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. See ECF Nos. 46 &

18

48. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to

19

manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant all cut in favor of the sanction of

20

dismissal. My warning to plaintiff that failure to obey court orders will result in dismissal

21

satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone,

22

833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.1 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal

23

could result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I find that the balance of factors weighs in

24

favor of dismissal.

25
26
27
28

1

The February 7, 2025 order expressly warned plaintiff that his failure to comply with
court orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 48.
2

1

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

2

1. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to

3

comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the February 7, 2025 order.

4

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 46, be DENIED as moot.

5

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

6

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

7

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

8

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the

9

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to

10

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed

11

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

12

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

13

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

14

1991).

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
Dated:

March 4, 2025

18

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3