(PC) Ibarra v. Zamora et al, No. 1:2017cv00144 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Action; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to ASSIGN a District Judge signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/4/2018. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due within Fourteen Days. The new case number is 1:17-cv-00144-DAD-JLT(PC). (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID IBARRA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 CASE No. 1:17-cv-00144-JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION v. L.D. ZAMORA, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE (Doc. 23) 16 On November 8, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 19) Plaintiff has filed 17 18 no opposition, although court records reflect plaintiff was properly served with notice of the 19 motion. On April 2, 2018, the court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be 20 dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to oppose defendants’ motion. The Court specifically informed 21 the plaintiff that his failure to file an opposition or otherwise respond to the court’s order would 22 result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The deadline for responding has now 23 passed, and plaintiff has still not filed an opposition or otherwise responded to the order to show 24 cause. 25 Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written 26 opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 27 the granting of the motion . . . .” Further, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with 28 the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or 1 Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 2 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), the court deems the failure to file written opposition as a 3 waiver of any opposition to the granting of defendant’s motion. Furthermore, “[f]ailure to follow 4 a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 5 (9th Cir. 1995). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are 6 liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. 7 Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1986). 8 9 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 10 has impeded the expeditious resolution of the instant litigation and has burdened the court’s 11 docket, consuming scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which plaintiff demonstrates 12 no intention to pursue. Although public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, 13 plaintiff’s failure to oppose the pending motion has precluded the court from doing so. In 14 addition, defendants are prejudiced by the inability to reply to opposition. Finally, the court has 15 repeatedly advised plaintiff of the requirements under the Local Rules and granted ample 16 additional time to oppose the pending motion, all to no avail. The court finds no suitable 17 alternative to dismissal of this action. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 18 19 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. In addition, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 23 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 24 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties may respond to 25 objections within fourteen days after service of the objections. 26 /// 27 /// 28 2 1 2 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). 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 4, 2018 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.