Lewis v. Reno Police et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting Defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 27 and 38 ); dismissal is without prejudice; Clerk directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/2/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8 AUBREY U. LEWIS, SR.,
9

Case No. 3:16-cv-00478-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
10
RENO POLICE, et al,
11
Defendants.
12
13

Before the Court are two motions to dismiss: (1) Defendant Kevin Moss’s motion

14

(ECF No. 27) and (2) Defendants Jason Pruyn and Anthony Della’s motion (ECF No. 38).

15

In response to Moss’s motion, Plaintiff asked for a 90-day extension of time (ECF No. 34),

16

which the Court granted in part, giving him until June 19, 2017, to file a response (ECF

17

No. 37 at 1.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to either motion.

18

Under Local Rule LR 7-2(d), “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and

19

authorities in response to any motion [with exceptions not applicable here] shall constitute

20

a consent to the granting of the motion." When an opposing party receives notice and is

21

given sufficient time to respond to a motion to dismiss, a district court does not abuse its

22

discretion in granting the motion based on failure to comply with a local rule. See Ghazali

23

v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir.1995). Before dismissing a case for failing to follow local

24

rules, the district court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public's interest in

25

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

26

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

27

availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th

28

Cir.1986).

1

In the present case, Plaintiff was given appropriate notice of Defendants’ motions

2

to dismiss; and he has had ample time to respond to these motions, which have been

3

pending for over six months. In fact, Plaintiff was aware of the need to respond as

4

evidence by his request for extension to respond to Moss’s motion. (ECF No. 34.) The

5

Court has weighed the above factors. It finds that the public’s interest in expeditious

6

resolution of litigation, as well as the Court’s need to manage its docket, outweigh the risk

7

of prejudice and the remaining factors. Accordingly, the Court will grant the pending

8

motions to dismiss.

9
10
11

It is therefore ordered that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 27, 38) are
granted. Dismissal is without prejudice.
The Clerk is instructed to close this case.

12
13

DATED THIS 2nd day of January 2018.

14
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2