Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bumagat v. Schillinger

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 7, 2019

MAYNARD EDRALIN BUMAGAT, Plaintiff,
v.
TERRY SCHILLINGER, et. al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF NOS. 86, 88)

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This case arises from allegations that Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated when Defendant Soliman reported Plaintiff to law enforcement authorities and when Vallejo officers investigated and arrested Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 26, the Fourth Amended Complaint.) At the August 22, 2019 Status Conference, Defendants Jeff Basset, Andrew Bidou, City of Vallejo, and Terry Shillinger (the “City Defendants”) asserted their intent to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (See ECF No. 83 at p. 3.) The City Defendants did so file on September 17, seeking judgment on the remaining claims against them, and set the matter for an October 24 hearing. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, did not file an opposition as required by Local Rule 230. (See ECF No. 87.) Considering Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court rescheduled the hearing and ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition. (ECF No. 88.) Plaintiff did neither. (ECF No. 89.)

         For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends this case be dismissed with prejudice and the case be closed.

         Legal Standard

         Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:

Any individual representing himself [] without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff's case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or fails to comply with the court's orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court's local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court's orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal or default).

         A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court's local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. Specifically, the court must consider:

(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
(2) the court's need to manage its docket;
(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;
(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.

Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.