(PC) Reid v. Wood ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILLIP REID, Case No. 1:18-cv-01635-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE 14 A. WOOD, 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 On March 19, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 34.) 18 Defendant provided Plaintiff with notice of the requirements for opposing her motion under the 19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, and informed Plaintiff that failure to file an 20 opposition may result in dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2-3.) Despite this, Plaintiff failed to file an 21 opposition. Accordingly, on May 7, 2020, the Court issued an order to show cause, within 21 22 days, why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 23 (Doc. 35.) The order provided that Plaintiff may alternatively file an opposition within that time. 24 (Id.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in a 25 recommendation that this case be dismissed with prejudice. Although more than the allowed time 26 has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or respond to the order to show cause. 27 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for 1 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” 2 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 3 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 4 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 5 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 6 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 7 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 8 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 9 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 10 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so 11 mistakenly or intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the 12 Court’s orders and Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that 13 Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED with 15 prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and obey a court order. These Findings and 16 Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, 17 pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 18 Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The 19 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 20 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 21 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 22 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: June 11, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27