MILLER v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY LHM ACJ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-01No. No. 20-15900

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Miller's diversity action under Rule 41(b), finding no abuse of discretion based on Miller's failure to communicate with opposing counsel, misrepresentations regarding discovery, and failure to remedy discovery and scheduling violations despite clear warnings.

Chasmind David Miller filed a diversity lawsuit against an insurance company alleging breaches of contract related to an automobile purchase and insurance policy. The district court dismissed his action under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Miller appealed pro se, challenging the dismissal and raising additional claims of judicial prejudice.

The appellate court upheld the dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion. Miller had failed to communicate timely with opposing counsel, made false statements to the court about discovery matters, and ignored warnings that his failure to address discovery and scheduling problems could lead to dismissal. The court also rejected Miller's criticism of the district judge's refusal to rule on his summary judgment and compel motions while discovery remained pending, noting that courts have substantial discretion in managing motion practice. The court found Miller's allegations of judicial bias wholly without merit.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion
Whether the district court abused its discretion by deferring rulings on pending motions during ongoing discovery
Whether the district judge exhibited prejudice or bias

Procedural posture

Miller appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his diversity action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Chasmind David Miller appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging contractual violations arising out of the purchase of an automobile and an insurance policy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 523 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for failure to prosecute); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Millers action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Miller failed to communicate with defense counsel in a timely manner, made misrepresentations to the court regarding discovery, and took no action to rectify discovery and scheduling issues, despite being warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (discussing factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on Millers opposed motion for summary judgment or motion to compel while discovery was ongoing. See Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and noting a district courts “considerable latitude in managing the parties’ motion practice”).

We reject as meritless Millers contentions that the district judge was prejudiced or biased.

To the extent Millers letter filing (Docket Entry No. 15) seeks relief, any request is denied.

AFFIRMED.