(PC) Lopez v. Medina ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH LOPEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-00794-DAD-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 I. MEDINA, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 18, 2020, the Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed to state 18 a cognizable claim and granting her leave to file a second amended complaint.1 (Doc. 15.) 19 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. On April 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response to the 20 Court’s screening order, in which she states, “I repeat: I will not seek help from courts again. Any 21 further correspondence from you will be refused.” (Doc. 16.) 22 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 23 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for 24 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” 25 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 26 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 27 1 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 Per Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s screening order, Plaintiff has abandoned this action. 8 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for 9 failure to prosecute. 10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 11 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 12 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 13 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 14 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 15 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 16 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Sheila K. Oberto 19 Dated: April 20, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27