1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYLO JEROME FELIX, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-01472-JLT-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO OBEY 13 v. COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 S. DOUGHERTY, et al., 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff Tylo Jerome Felix, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action brought pursuant to

. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth 19 Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Bencito, 20 Dougherty, Ravijot, and Trovao. 21 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 22 On September 10, 2025, Defendants filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss 23 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 47.) On October 8, 2025, Defendants filed a 24 Notice of Plaintiff’s Failure to Oppose Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 48.) 25 On October 9, 2025, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) in Writing Why 26 Sanctions Should Not be Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of 27 Non-Opposition. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff was directed to respond in writing within 14 days, or, in the alternative, to file a statement of opposition or non-opposition within that same period. (Id. at 2.) 1 Although more than 14 days plus time for mailing have passed, Plaintiff has failed to respond. 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 A. Legal Standards 4 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 5 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 6 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 7 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 8 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 9 City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 10 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 11 Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 12 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 13 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 14 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 15 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 16 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 17 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 18 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 19 1423; Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). 20 B. Analysis 21 Here, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and did 22 not respond to the OSC. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases 23 litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors—the public’s 24 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket—weigh 25 in favor of dismissal. Carey,

. 26 The third factor weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 27 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W.,

, 524 1 Opposition, if any, to the granting of [a] motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days 2 after the date of service of the motion. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a 3 statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or to 4 file a statement of non-opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the 5 imposition of sanctions. 6 See Local Rule 230(l). Despite the passage of more than 50 days since the filing of Defendants’ 7 motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has failed to comply. His inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay 8 in prosecuting this action resulting in a presumption of injury. Therefore, the third factor—a risk 9 of prejudice to defendants—also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey,

. 10 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 11 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). However, 12 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 13 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re 14 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation,

(9th Cir. 2006) 15 (citation omitted). Simply put, by failing to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, 16 Plaintiff is not moving this case forward and is impeding its progress. Thus, the fourth factor—the 17 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 18

. 19 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 20 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

. 21 The Court’s October 9, 2025, OSC directed Plaintiff to show cause in writing, or to file an 22 opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, within 14 days. 23 (Doc. 49 at 2.) It also expressly warned: “Plaintiff is advised that a failure to respond to this 24 Order to Show Cause (OSC) may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed 25 for a failure to obey court orders and a failure to prosecute.” (Id., emphasis in original.) In the 26 Court’s First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case, issued October 1, 27 2021, Plaintiff was also advised that “In litigating this action, the parties must comply with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), and the Local Rules of the United 1 States District Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”), as modified by this Order. 2 Failure to so comply will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of 3 the case. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (Doc. 2 at 1.) That order also advised that “Local 4 Rule 230(l) sets out the schedule for briefing motions” and that “all Court deadlines are strictly 5 enforced.” (Id. at 5.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his 6 noncompliance. Therefore, the fifth factor—the availability of less drastic sanctions—also weighs 7 in favor of dismissal. Carey,

. 8 In sum, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules and this Court’s orders, and in 9 doing so, has failed to prosecute this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so intentionally or 10 mistakenly is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Local Rules and 11 the Court’s orders and to prosecute this action. The Court declines to expend its limited resources 12 on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 13 14 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 16 without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey this Court’s Local Rules and orders and for a 17 failure to prosecute. 18 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 19 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within 14 days 20 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 21 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 22 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages 23 without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to 24 the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference 25 the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 26 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation 27 may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 1 may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 839 2 (9th Cir. 2014). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: October 31, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27