Leal v. Kings County Sheriff ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JOSE REYMUNDO LEAL, Case No. 1:19-cv-01381-NONE-SKO 9 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR 10 PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY v. WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND 11 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM KINGS COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 12 (Docs. 1, 5, 7) Defendants. 13 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 Plaintiff, Jose Reymundo Leal, is a prisoner in the custody of Wasco State Prison. On 16 October 2, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 17 (“Section 1983”) against Defendants Kings County Sheriff, Kings County Probation, and 18 “Mazuka,” Probation Officer at Kings County Probation. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application 19 to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which was granted on October 7, 2019. 20 (Docs. 2, 3.) 21 On November 21, 2019, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed 22 to state any cognizable claims and granted Plaintiff twenty-one days leave to file an amended 23 complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. 5.) Although more than 24 the allowed time passed, Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the 25 Court’s screening order. 26 On February 7, 2020, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within twenty-one 27 days why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s screening 28 order and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff was warned in both the screening order and 1 the OSC that the failure to comply with the Court's order would result in a recommendation to the 2 presiding district judge of the dismissal of this action. (Id. See also Doc. 5.) Plaintiff has not yet 3 filed any response. 4 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of 5 a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 6 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. See also 7 Local Rule 183(a). “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising 8 that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing 9 Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 10 prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure 11 to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 12 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 13 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 14 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute 15 and to comply with local rules). 16 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the screening order and 17 the OSC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to respond to/obey a court 18 order, failure to prosecute, and failure to state a cognizable claim. 19 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with 20 prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute this action, and failure to 21 state a cognizable claim. 22 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within twenty- 24 one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file 25 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 26 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 27 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 28 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 1 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 2 on the docket for this matter. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Sheila K. Oberto 5 Dated: May 12, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28