(PC) Velazquez v. Bereqouskaya ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE VELAZQUEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-01760-DAD-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. TO DISMISS ACTION 14 O. BEREQOUSKAYA, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 21, 2020, the Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff’s 18 complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief and granting Plaintiff leave to amend. (Doc. 19 9.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. On 20 April 14, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within 21 days, why this action should 21 not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 11.) Although more than the 22 allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause. 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., 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 7 mistakenly or intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the 8 Court’s orders. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has 9 chosen to ignore. 10 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for 11 failure to obey court orders and failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. These Findings and 12 Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, 13 pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 14 Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The 15 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 16 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 17 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 18 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Sheila K. Oberto 21 Dated: May 22, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27