(PC) Harris v. Campell ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARVIN HARRIS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01659-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION 13 v. 14-DAY DEADLINE 14 T.L. CAMPBELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 20, 2019, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff failed to state a 18 cognizable claim in his complaint and granting him leave to amend. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff failed to 19 file an amended complaint or to otherwise respond to the Court’s order. Thus, on December 30, 20 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause (OSC), within 21 days, why this action should not 21 be dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s order and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 9.) 22 Although more than a month has passed, Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC. 23 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 24 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for 25 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” 26 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 27 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 28 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 1 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 2 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 3 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 4 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 5 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 6 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so mistakenly 7 or intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders. 8 The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 9 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for 10 failure to comply with the Court’s order and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be 11 granted. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 13 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 14 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 15 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 16 may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 17 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: February 3, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28