Grayson v. San Bernardino County

Full title: ANDRE LAMONT GRAYSON, Plaintiff, v. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Jun 30, 2015

ED CV 15-145-VBF(E) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 30, 2015)

Opinion

ANDRE LAMONT GRAYSON, Plaintiff, v. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, et al., Defendants. No. ED CV 15-145-VBF(E) United States District Court, C.D. California. June 30, 2015

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CHARLES F. EICK, Magistrate Judge.

         This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

         PROCEEDINGS

         On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint. On March 27, 2015, Defendant County of San Bernardino filed a Motion to Dismiss. On the same date, the Court ordered that Plaintiff file opposition to the Motion within thirty (30) days of March 27, 2015. The Court cautioned that: "[f]ailure timely to file opposition to the Motion may result in the dismissal of the action."

         On April 3, 2015, Defendants City of Rialto, Rialto Police Department, Tony Farrar, Officer Keetle and Austin Dossey file a Motion to Dismiss. On April 6, 2015, the Court ordered that Plaintiff file opposition to the Motion within thirty (30) days of April 6, 2015. The Court again cautioned that: "[f]ailure timely to file opposition to the Motion may result in the dismissal of the action."

         Plaintiff failed to file opposition to either Motion to Dismiss within the allotted time.

         DISCUSSION

         This action should be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to file timely opposition to two potentially dispositive motions despite a Court order that he do so. The Court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The Court has considered the factors recited in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992), and has concluded that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. In particular, any less drastic alternative would not be effective under the circumstances of this case.

         RECOMMENDATION

         For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing the action without prejudice.¹

1 In light of this recommended disposition, "Defendants' Motion to Stay, etc., " filed April 3, 2015, is denied as moot.