Case 2:20-cv-09891-SB-MRW Document 40 Filed 05/25/22 Pagelof4 Page ID#:153 3 JS-6 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 2 Case No. CV 20-9891 SB (MRW) 13 | JARMAAL SMITH,

° “ FRCP 41 16 R. JOHNSON, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 The Court dismisses this action with prejudice due to Plaintiffs 20 failure: (a) to respond to the defense’s dismissal motion; and (b) to □ prosecute the action. kkk 28 1. This is a civil action by an inmate at the state prison in 24 Lancaster. The complaint alleges that correctional officers used excessive 20 force against him during several cell extractions or for the administration . of antipsychotic medication. (Docket # 1.)

28

Case 2:20-cv-09891-SB-MRW Document 40 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:154

1 2. Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the complaint pursuant to 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Judge Wilner authorized Plaintiff to serve the 3 complaint on a limited number of correctional officers for specified 4 incidents identified by date. (Docket # 5.) 5 3. Following service of the complaint, the Attorney General 6 appeared in the action for all defendants. The Attorney General moved to 7 dismiss one aspect of the complaint. (Docket # 23.) Plaintiff failed to 8 respond to the dismissal motion. On that basis, the Court dismissed the 9 challenged portion of the complaint. (Docket # 28.) 10 4. After that, Judge Wilner ordered the parties to file case 11 management reports regarding the action. (Docket # 29.) The Attorney 12 General did so. (Docket # 32.) 13 5. Plaintiff did not. As a result, Judge Wilner ordered Plaintiff to 14 show cause why the action should not be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s 15 failure to prosecute the action. (Docket # 33, 35.)1 Plaintiff failed to 16 respond to the magistrate judge’s order. 17 6. In the interim, the Attorney General separately moved to 18 dismiss the action due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or otherwise 19 engage in the action. (Docket # 38.) Judge Wilner issued an order setting 20 a deadline for Plaintiff’s response to the dismissal motion. (Docket # 39.) 21 That order expressly advised Plaintiff that his failure to respond to the 22 motion would lead the Court to conclude that the motion was unopposed 23 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Id. (citing Applied 24 Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 892 (9th Cir. 2019)).) 25 7. Plaintiff did not file any substantive response to the motion. 26 To date, he also has not responded to the Court’s OSC. 27 1 Judge Wilner re-issued the original OSC after Plaintiff reported a 28 change of prison address. (Docket # 34.) 2 Case 2:20-cv-09891-SB-MRW Document 40 Filed 05/25/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:155

1 * * * 2 8. Local Rule 7-9 requires a party to file a memorandum stating 3 the basis for that party’s opposition to a motion. Local Rule 7-12 states 4 that the “failure to file any required document [ ] may be deemed consent to 5 the granting or denial of the motion.” 6 9. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff 7 fails “to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to 8 dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Dismissal also may be ordered 9 by the Court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 10 (1962). 11 10. Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 may be appropriate to 12 advance the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation, the 13 court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid the risk of prejudice to 14 defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F. 3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). 15 Additionally, a court should consider the public policy favoring disposition 16 of cases on their merits and the availability of less drastic alternatives in 17 its evaluation. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 18 * * * 19 11. In the present action, the Attorney General’s dismissal motion 20 – pending with the Court for several months – is unopposed. The Attorney 21 General fairly summarized Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the litigation, 22 including his refusal to respond to the defense’s discovery requests.2 23 (Docket # 38 at 3-4.) Plaintiff’s failure to file any response (despite an 24 explanatory advisement from the magistrate judge) means that the Court 25

26 2 The Attorney General filed its dismissal motion (cataloguing Plaintiff’s failures to: respond to court orders; provide a case management report; 27 and comply with his discovery obligation, in lieu of seeking to compel discovery under Rule 37. 28 3 Case 2:20-cv-09891-SB-MRW Document 40 Filed 05/25/22 Page 4of4 Page ID #:156

1 | should deem the dismissal motion unopposed under Local Rule 7-12 and 2 | grant the requested relief. 3 12. Additionally, Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court’s case 4 | management rules or to respond to the OSCs warrants dismissal under 5 | Rule 41. Plaintiff's silence in the face of so many court orders 6 | demonstrates that he has no interest in advancing the action here. 7 13. By contrast, the Court, the defense, and the public have a 8 | strong interest in terminating this action. This is particularly true given 9 | that Plaintiff effectively chose to abandon his case by failing to respond to 10 | court orders. Furthermore, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who did 11 | not comply with the magistrate judge’s previous orders, no sanction short 12 | of dismissal will be effective in moving this case forward. Carey, 856 F.2d 13 | at 1440. The Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate under 14 | Rule 41(b). Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 892. 15 14. Dismissal under Rule 41(b) ordinarily “operates as an 16 | adjudication on the merits” of aclaim. Therefore, the present action is 17 | DISMISSED with prejudice 18 SO ORDERED. 19 99 | Dated: May 25, 2022 21 0S 22 Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. 93 United States District Judge 24 | Presented by: 25 Sil a HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 28 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE