(PC) Keck v. Batra ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BILL KECK, Case No. 1:19-cv-00910-JDP 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR 11 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 12 S. BATRA, OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 13 Defendant. ORDER THAT THE CLERK ASSIGN THIS 14 CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 Plaintiff Bill Keck is a civil detainee proceeding without counsel and without 18 prepayment of fees in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s 19 complaint was screened on December 2, 2019, and plaintiff was ordered to respond within 20 thirty days. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff, however, filed neither a response to the screening order nor 21 a first amended complaint. On April 6, 2020, the court issued an order to show cause why the 22 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. ECF No. 23 9. That order warned that a failure to respond would “constitute another failure to comply with 24 a court order and will result in dismissal of this case.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff has again not 25 responded. We thus recommend that the case be dismissed. 26 To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines and require litigants to meet 27 those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may 4649 UVES LUNN VR RI Ie Yee ve 1 | dismiss the plaintiffs case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. 2 | Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[ T]he consensus among our 3 | sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at 4 | least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has 5 | duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 6 | Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 7 This recommendation will be submitted to a U.S. district judge presiding over the case 8 | under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within 30 days of the service of the 9 | findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and 10 | recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be 11 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding 12 | district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 13 | 636(b)(1)(C). 14 | ORDER 15 The clerk of court is ordered to assign the case to a district judge to review the 16 | recommendation above. 17 18 T IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( {WSs ated: _ May 14, 2020 20 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 | No. 205. 23 24 25 26 27 28