(PC) Villanueva v. State of California, et al, No. 2:2006cv02706 - Document 81 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/1/2011 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed w/out prejudice pursuant to F.R. Civ. P. 41(b). Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due w/in 21 days.(Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Villanueva v. State of California, et al Doc. 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSE GUADALUPE VILLANUEVA, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:06-cv-2706 LKK KJN P vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 22, 2010, defendants Kromann, Noriega, Rallos, 18 Traquina, and Tran filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 5, 2009, the court advised 19 plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 20 Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and 21 Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). In that same order, plaintiff was 22 advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the pending motion and that failure to 23 oppose such a motion would be deemed as consent to have the: (a) pending motion granted; (b) 24 action dismissed for lack of prosecution; and (c) action dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to 25 comply with these rules and a court order. 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On January 13, 2011, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition to the pending 2 motion within twenty-one days. In the same order, plaintiff was informed that failure to file an 3 opposition would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The twenty-one day period has now expired and 5 plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 6 “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss 7 an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 8 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a 9 court order the district court must weigh five factors including: ‘(1) the public’s interest in 10 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 11 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 12 and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (quoting 13 Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 14 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 15 In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court has 16 considered the five factors set forth in Ferdik. Here, as in Ferdik, the first two factors strongly 17 support dismissal of this action. The action has been pending for almost five years and has 18 reached the stage, set by the court’s September 3, 2009 scheduling order, for resolution of 19 dispositive motions and, if necessary, preparation for pretrial conference and jury trial. (See dkt. 20 No. 54.) Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and the court’s January 31, 2011 21 order suggests that he has abandoned this action and that further time spent by the court thereon 22 will consume scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which plaintiff demonstrates no 23 intention to pursue. 24 Under the circumstances of this case, the third factor, prejudice to defendants 25 from plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, also favors dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to oppose 26 the motion prevents defendants from addressing plaintiff’s substantive opposition, and would 2 1 delay resolution of this action, thereby causing defendants to incur additional time and expense. 2 The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The court has advised plaintiff of the 3 requirements under the Local Rules and granted ample additional time to oppose the pending 4 motion, all to no avail. The court finds no suitable alternative to dismissal of this action. 5 The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, 6 weighs against dismissal of this action as a sanction. However, for the reasons set forth supra, 7 the first, second, third, and fifth factors strongly support dismissal. Under the circumstances of 8 this case, those factors outweigh the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 9 merits. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263. 10 11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 13 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 14 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 15 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 16 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 17 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 18 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 19 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 DATED: March 1, 2011 21 22 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 vill2706.46fr 25 26 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
