(PC) Morris v. Modhaddam et al, No. 2:2018cv02850 - Document 51 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/16/2020 VACATING defendant Tesluk's 41 motion to dismiss and RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's claims against defendant Tesluk be dismissed from this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 1(b). Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr; Objections to F&R due within 30 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONDALEE MORRIS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2: 18-cv-2850 MCE KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER & FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS G. MODHADDAM, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 5, 2020, defendant Tesluk filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 41.) On June 9, 2020, the undersigned 20 granted plaintiff thirty days to file an opposition to defendant Tesluk’s motion to dismiss. (ECF 21 No. 48.) On June 10, 2020, the court advised plaintiff that motions to dismiss shall be briefed 22 pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). (ECF No. 49.) 23 24 For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Tesluk be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 25 “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an 26 action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 27 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a 28 court order the district court must weigh five factors including: ‘(1) the public’s interest in 1 1 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 2 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 3 and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (quoting 4 Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 5 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). In determining whether to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against defendant Tesluk pursuant to 6 7 Rule 41(b), the court has considered the five factors set forth in Ferdik. Here, as in Ferdik, the 8 first two factors support dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant Tesluk. This action had 9 been pending for approximately 1 ½ years when defendant Tesluk filed the motion to dismiss. 10 This action had reached the stage for resolution of motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of 11 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and the court’s June 12 9, 2020 order directing him to file an opposition within thirty days suggests that he has abandoned 13 his claims against defendant Tesluk. Further time spent by the court thereon will consume scarce 14 judicial resources in addressing claims which plaintiff demonstrates no intention to pursue. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, the third factor, prejudice to defendant Tesluk from 16 plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, also favors dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the 17 motion prevents defendant Tesluk from addressing plaintiff’s substantive opposition, and would 18 delay resolution of this action, thereby causing defendant to incur additional time and expense. 19 The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The court has advised plaintiff of the requirements 20 under the Local Rules and granted ample time to oppose the pending motion. The court finds no 21 suitable alternative to dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant Tesluk. 22 The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, weighs 23 against dismissing plaintiff’s claims against defendant Tesluk as a sanction. However, for the 24 reasons set forth supra, the first, second, third, and fifth factors strongly support dismissal of 25 plaintiff’s claims against defendant Tesluk. Under the circumstances of this case, those factors 26 outweigh the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. See Ferdik, 963 27 F.2d at 1263. 28 //// 2 1 2 3 4 5 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Tesluk’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 41) is vacated; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Tesluk be dismissed from this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after 7 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 8 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 10 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 11 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 12 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 Dated: July 16, 2020 14 15 16 17 Morr2850.nop 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.
