1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TINA MEDINA, Case No.: 24-CV-824-CAB-MSB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 12 v. MOTION TO DISMISS

13 JUDGE LAURA H. MILLER et al., [Doc. No. 5] 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 On May 9, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Tina Medina filed the complaint in this lawsuit 19 purporting to assert claims for “deprivation of liberty,” against six California state court 20 judges, including the chief justice of California, and an attorney. The claims in the 21 complaint appear to arise out of the defendants’ alleged involvement in a state court child 22 custody matter. The six judicial defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 31, 2024. 23 The motion set a hearing date (for briefing purposes only) of July 8, 2024. Civil Local 24 Rule 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of non- 25 opposition no later than fourteen calendar days before the noticed hearing. Thus, based on 26 the hearing date of July 8, 2024, Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on 27 June 24, 2024. No opposition has been filed. Under the local rules, Plaintiff’s failure to 28 oppose “may constitute a consent to the granting of [the] motion.” See CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. 1 District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including 2 dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran,

52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule 4 by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion). Before 5 dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] 6 several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 7 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 8 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 9 sanctions.’” Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986)). 10 Here, the Ghazali factors support granting the motion based on the lack of opposition 11 because Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion to dismiss indicates that Plaintiff has 12 abandoned her claims against the judicial defendants and consents to the granting of the 13 motion to dismiss. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s 14 need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to the judicial defendants by further delays 15 in this litigation, and the lack of appropriate less drastic sanctions all support dismissal. 16 Moreover, upon review of the motion and of the record, the motion appears to be 17 meritorious and dismissal is warranted for all of the reasons stated in the motion, including 18 that the judicial defendants are entitled to judicial immunity, the Court lacks subject matter 19 jurisdiction, and the complaint otherwise fails to state a claim on which relief can be 20 granted. Therefore, the Court assumes the lack of opposition to the motion to dismiss is 21 intentional and constitutes Plaintiff’s consent to the granting of the motion. 22 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED based on the lack of opposition 23 and on its merits for the reasons set forth above, and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH 24 PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Laura H. Miller, Judge Maureen H. 25 26 27 28 1 || Hallahan, Judge Jose S. Castillo, Judge Daniel F. Link, Justice Patricia Guerrero, and Judge 2 || Blaine K. Bowman.! 3 It is SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: July 2, 2024 € Z 5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' The remaining Defendant, Stephanie Mendez, has not appeared, and there is no indication on the docket 27 || that she has been served with the summons and complaint. Plaintiff is advised that if Ms. Mendez is not 28 served within 90 days of the complaint being filed, the claims against her will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44m).