(PC) Moses v. Biter ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVON MOSES, Case No.: 1:18-cv-00995-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. TO DISMISS ACTION 14 BITER, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge 16 17 FINDINGS 18 On August 20, 2019, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff Kevin Moses failed to 19 state a cognizable claim and granting leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff 20 failed to file an amended complaint or to otherwise respond to the Court’s screening order. Thus, 21 on October 7, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”), within 21 days, why this 22 action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure state a claim and to comply with the Court’s 23 order. (Doc. 14.) Although more a month has passed, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the OSC. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that 25 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for 26 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” 27 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 1 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 2 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g. 3 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 4 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 5 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 6 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so 8 mistakenly or intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the 9 Court’s orders. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has 10 chosen to ignore. 11 RECOMMENDATION 12 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for 13 failure to comply with the Court’s order and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be 14 granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. 15 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 16 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 17 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 18 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 19 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 20 may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 21 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Sheila K. Oberto 24 Dated: November 14, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27