(PC) Ring v. Allenby ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW ARLINGTON RING, Case No. 1:18-cv-01283-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION 13 v. 14-DAY DEADLINE 14 B. PRICE, et al., Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 12, 2019, the Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed to 18 state a cognizable claim and granting him leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 14.) 19 On December 6, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff a 30-day extension of time to file an amended 20 complaint. (Doc. 16.) Although more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file 21 an amended complaint or otherwise comply with the Court’s order. Therefore, on January 22, 22 2020, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for 23 failure to state a claim and to obey a court order. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff did not respond.1 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 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 1 The U.S. Postal Service returned the OSC as undeliverable. Per Local Rule 182(f), if a pro se party moves without 1 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 2 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 3 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 4 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 5 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 6 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 7 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 8 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 9 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so 10 mistakenly or intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the 11 Court’s orders. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has 12 chosen to ignore. 13 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for 14 failure to comply with a court order and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 15 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a District Judge to this action. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 17 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 18 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 19 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 20 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 21 may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 22 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: February 27, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27