(PC) Williams v. Sabin et al, No. 2:2010cv00656 - Document 71 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/29/2012 DENYING, as unnecessary, 54 Motion to Proceed IFP; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed pursuant to F.R.Cv.P. Rule 41(b). Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Michel, G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Williams v. Sabin et al Doc. 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DELBERT WILLIAMS, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, No. 2: 10-cv-0656 KJM DAD P Defendants. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND vs. SABIN, et al., 15 16 17 RECOMMENDATIONS / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action filed 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed 19 in forma pauperis. On May 14, 2012, plaintiff filed another motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 (See Dkt. No. 54.) In light of the court’s previous granting of plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 21 forma pauperis, plaintiff’s May 14, 2012 motion will be denied as unnecessary. 22 On June 1, 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to 23 the court’s August 21, 2012 order, plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment was 24 due thirty days thereafter. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. On June 25 15, 2011 and again on August 21, 2012, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an 26 opposition to a summary judgment motion and was also advised that failure to oppose such a 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 motion might be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 2 “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss 3 an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 4 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a 5 court order the district court must weigh five factors including: ‘(1) the public’s interest in 6 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 7 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 8 and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (quoting 9 Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 10 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 11 The court has considered the five factors set forth in Ferdik. The first two factors 12 strongly support dismissal of this action. The action has been pending for over two years and has 13 reached the stage, set by the court’s September 28, 2011 scheduling order, for resolution of 14 dispositive motions, and, if necessary, preparation for pretrial conference and jury trial. (See 15 Dkt. No. 43.) 16 The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The court has advised plaintiff of the Local 17 Rules and plaintiff has now had five months to file a response to the motion for summary 18 judgment. The court finds no suitable alternative to dismissal of this action. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, the third factor, prejudice to defendants 20 from plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, should be given little weight. Plaintiff’s failure to 21 oppose the motion does not put defendants at any disadvantage in this action. See Fedrik, 963 22 F.2d at 1262. The defendants would only be “disadvantaged” by a decision to continue this 23 action where plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 24 The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, 25 weighs against dismissal of this action as a sanction. However, for the reasons set forth supra, 26 the first, second and fifth factors strongly support dismissal and the third factor does not mitigate 2 1 against it. Under the circumstances of this case, those factors outweigh the general public policy 2 favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 4 forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 54.) is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY as plaintiff already has been 5 granted in forma pauperis status. 6 7 Furthermore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 8 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 10 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 13 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 14 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 15 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: October 29, 2012. 17 18 19 20 21 22 DAD:dpw will0656.46s.fr 23 24 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.
