Opinion
1:20-cv-1609 JLT GSA
01-26-2024
JUSTIN SHERMAN, Plaintiff, v. RAMADAN, Defendant.
OBJECTIONS TO ORDER DUE FEBRUARY 9, 2024
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ORDER
ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS MATTER AND DENIAL OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT
(ECF No. 28)
GARY S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Before this Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment and his notice regarding Plaintiff's failure to oppose it. ECF Nos. 28, 35, respectively. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order. In addition, it will be recommended that Defendant's motion to dismiss be denied as moot.
I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter is at the dispositive motion phase of the proceedings. On November 3, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment and lodged relevant documents in support of it. ECF Nos. 28, 29. Plaintiff did not file a timely response to the motion in accord with Local Rule 230(1). As a result, on December 8, 2023, the Court issued an order to show cause why Defendant's motion for summary judgment should not be granted. ECF No. 34.
Plaintiff's showing of cause was due January 8, 2024. See ECF No. 34 at 2. On January 22, 2024, Defendant filed a notice regarding Plaintiff's failure to oppose his summary judgment motion. ECF No. 35. The Court considers these facts herein.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
The Court has factors it must consider when dismissing a matter for failure to prosecute: (1) its need to manage its docket; (2) the public's interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants against the policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits, and (4) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Ace Novelty Co. v. Gooding Amusement Co., 664 F.2d 761, 763 (9th Cir. 1981); Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 544, 525 (9th Cir. 1976). Only unreasonable delay will support a dismissal for lack of prosecution. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Nealy v. Transportation Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1280 (9th Cir. 1980)).
III. DISCUSSION
After Defendant filed his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff's opposition, or a statement of non-opposition to it, was due twenty-one days later, and Defendant's reply was due seven days thereafter. See Local Rule 230(1). Thus, the matter should have been fully briefed by the parties and deemed submitted by December 1, 2023. See Local Rule 230(1) (effectively stating twenty-eight-day period to address motion before it is automatically deemed submitted).
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant's motion, nor has he filed a response to the Court's order to show cause. Nor has he filed requests to extend the periods to do so.
This Court's caseload is one of the most heavily taxed in the nation. As a result, there are limits to the amount of time that can be spent on any given matter when a party is not making efforts to move it forward. Other members of the public who may be litigants in this Court share the Court's interest in the expeditious resolution of cases that come before it. Furthermore, to prolong this case for the sole purpose of trying to resolve it on its merits would further prejudice Defendant, who has already taken significant steps so that it could be. Finally, Plaintiff's failure to participate in the dispositive motion process, coupled with his failure to follow court rules and obey the Court's order indicates that taking additional measures short of dismissal would be an exercise in futility as it is highly unlikely that the case would eventually be resolved on its merits. For these reasons, this matter should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order.
The Eastern District of California carries one of the largest and most heavily weighted caseloads in the nation. See Office of the Clerk, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, 2023 Annual Report, “Workload Statistics,” p. 33 (2023) (“[O]ur weighted caseload far exceeds the national average . . . ranking us seventh in the nation and first in the Ninth Circuit.”). This problem is compounded by a shortage of jurists to review its pending matters. See generally id. (stating 2024 Biennial Judgeship Survey recommended request for four additional permanent judgeships for Eastern District of California).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. This matter be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Local Rule 110;
2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment be DENIED as moot, and
3. This case be CLOSED.
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)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations - by February 9, 2024 - any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.