Marrs v. City of Imperial

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHRISTOPHER DANIEL MARRS, Case No.: 22-CV-180-CAB-MSB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 12 v. MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT 13 CITY OF IMPERIAL et al., 14 Defendants. [Doc. No. 17] 15 16 This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss by Defendant City of Imperial 17 on the grounds that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing and that the complaint fails to state 18 a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The motion was filed on February 17, 2022, and set a 19 hearing date (for briefing purposes only) of March 24, 2022. Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 20 requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition no 21 later than fourteen calendar days before the noticed hearing. Thus, based on the hearing 22 date of March 24, 2022, Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on March 23 10, 2022. No opposition has been filed. Under the local rules, Plaintiff’s failure to oppose 24 “may constitute a consent to the granting of [the] motion.” See CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. 25 District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including 26 dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 27 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule 28 1 || by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion). Before 2 dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] 3 ||several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 4 ||court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 5 || policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 6 ||sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson vy. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 7 Cir. 1986)). 8 Here, the Ghazali factors support granting the motion based on the lack of opposition 9 ||because Plaintiff's failure to oppose the motion to dismiss indicates that Plaintiff has 10 || abandoned this lawsuit and consents to the granting of the motion to dismiss. The public’s 11 |/interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, the 12 ||risk of prejudice to defendants by further delays in this litigation, and the lack of 13 appropriate less drastic sanctions all support dismissal. Moreover, upon review of the 14 || motion and of the record, the motion appears to be meritorious and dismissal is warranted 15 || for all of the reasons stated by the City of Imperial in the motion and, as the motion notes, 16 || because of the “vague, peculiar, and rambling nature of Plaintiff's complaint.” [Doc. No. 17 || 17-1 at 6.] Therefore, the Court assumes the lack of opposition to the motion to dismiss 1s 18 |/intentional and constitutes Plaintiffs consent to the granting of the motion. 19 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED based on the lack of opposition 20 on its merits for the reasons set forth above, and the complaint is DISMISSED. 21 It is SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: March 16, 2022 23 24 95 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 26 27 28