Opinion
22-cv-690-MMA (DEB)
03-24-2023
STEPHON BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. SONIA L. MANNING, Facility Commander, Vista Detention Facility, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
[DOC. NO. 16]
MICHAEL M. ANELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Stephon Butler, a California inmate proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of San Diego, former San Diego County Sheriff Anthony Ray, and Commander Sonia L. Manning (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging a claim for cruel and unusual punishment. See Doc. No. 10 (“First Amended Complaint”). On January 1, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 16. The Court set the motion for hearing on February 27, 2023, meaning that Plaintiff was required to file a response in opposition no later than February 13, 2023. See CivLR 7.1.e.2 (stating that “each party each party opposing a motion . . . must file that opposition or statement of non-opposition with the Clerk and serve the movant or the movant's attorney not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing.”). Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition brief or statement of non-opposition in response to Defendants' motion.
The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides: “If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendants' motion to dismiss based upon Plaintiff's failure to respond and chooses to do so here.
Generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a Rule 12 motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' unopposed motion to dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claim without prejudice. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending deadlines and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.