Robinson v. City of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY ROBINSON, Case No.: 18-cv-1918-AJB-AGS Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ v. 13 MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S 14 DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF BILL GORE, (Doc. No. 75) 15 SAN DIEGO CENTRAL JAIL and DOES 1-10, 16 17 Defendants.

18 19 Pending before the Court is Defendants County of San Diego Sheriff’s Department, 20 San Diego Central Jail, and Sheriff Bill Gore’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 21 No. 75.) The motion is unopposed. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court 22 GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On August 23, 2017, San Diego Police Department (“SDPD”) officers approached 25 Plaintiff Jeffrey Robinson (“Robinson”) as he was dropping off personal items at a local 26 thrift store. (Doc. No. 66 at 2–3.) The officers allegedly either failed to recognize that 27 Robinson is deaf, cannot hear, and/or failed to consider that he communicates primarily 28 1 using American Sign Language (“ASL”). (Id. at 3.) SDPD officers allegedly shot taser 2 darts into Robinson and then arrested him (Id.) Robinson was held in Central Jail for three 3 days without an ASL interpreter, although one was requested, and was thereafter released. 4 (Id. at 9.) Robinson asserts violations of Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 5 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, California Government Code § 11135, 6 Deprivation of Civil Rights – Individual Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Deprivation of 7 Civil Rights – Entity and its Supervisory Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Deprivation 8 of Civil Rights under California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. On September 3, 2021, 9 Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief 10 can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Pursuant to this Court's order on 11 September 7, 2021, Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was due on or before 12 September 21, 2021. To date, no opposition or Second Amended Complaint has been filed 13 with the Court. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or 16 statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. As 17 further described in Local Rule 7.1.f.3.a., the opposition must be in writing. Failure to 18 comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion” under Local 19 Rule 7.1.f.3.c. 20 District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including 21 dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 22 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Before 23 dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] 24 several factors: ‘(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 25 court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 26 policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 27 sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 28 (9th Cir. 1986)). 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 “The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” 3 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Not only is orderly and swift 4 resolution of disputes importance to the rule of law, but delay in reaching the merits “is 5 costly in money, memory, manageability, and confidence in the process.” In re 6 Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006). Along with 7 determining the public's interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation, the district court 8 judge is also in the best position to determine whether the delay in failure to oppose a 9 motion or to comply with a timing requirement interferes with the court's docket 10 management. Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 11 2002). Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. Id. at 642. 12 “A defendant suffers prejudice if the plaintiff's actions impair the defendant's ability 13 to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” In re 14 Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1227 (quoting Adriana Int'l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 15 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990)). Prejudice may include failing to produce documents or 16 submitting documents late. Id. Moreover, the law presumes that unreasonable delay is 17 prejudicial. Id. (citing In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1453 (9th Cir. 1994)). The plaintiff may 18 rebut this presumption either by showing that no actual prejudice occurred or by setting 19 forth a non-frivolous explanation for the delay, which then shifts the burden to the 20 defendant to show some actual prejudice. Id. (citing In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1453). Here, 21 Plaintiff has failed to rebut this presumption and accordingly this factor weighs in favor of 22 dismissal. 23 As public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits, this factor generally 24 weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. However, “a case that is stalled or 25 unreasonably delayed by a party's failure to comply [with local rules] cannot move forward 26 toward resolution on the merits.” In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1228. Thus, this 27 factor is not very persuasive to help a party who has the responsibility to move a case 28 toward disposition on the merits. Id. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 1 || The district court must also consider the impact of the sanction of dismissal and the 2 || availability of less drastic alternatives. Id. 3 Accordingly, the Court finds that the majority of these factors weigh in favor of 4 || dismissal of the Complaint. 5 IV. CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to 7 ||Dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to 8 ||submit an amended Complaint. Failure to do so will result in the Court's dismissal of this 9 || case. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: October 4, 2021 © ¢ 13 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28