Stock v. Stanislaus County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LISA STOCK, Case No. 1:19-cv-01598-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 STANISLAUS COUNTY, et al., 12 (Docs. 1, 5, 7) Defendants. 13 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to 17 proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which was granted on December 16, 2019. 18 (Docs. 2, 4.) 19 On January 14, 2020, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed 20 to state any cognizable claims and granted Plaintiff twenty-one days leave to file an amended 21 complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. 5.) Although more than 22 the allowed time passed, Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the 23 Court’s screening order. 24 On May 11, 2020, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within twenty-one 25 days why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s screening 26 order. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff was warned in both the screening order and the OSC that the failure to 27 comply with the Court's order would result in a recommendation to the presiding district judge of 28 the dismissal of this action. (Id. See also Doc. 5.) Plaintiff has not yet filed any response. 1 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of 2 a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 3 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. See also 4 Local Rule 183(a). “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising 5 that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing 6 Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 7 prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure 8 to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 9 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 10 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 11 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute 12 and to comply with local rules). 13 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the screening order and 14 the OSC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to respond to/obey a court 15 order, failure to prosecute, and failure to state a cognizable claim. 16 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, 17 with prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute this action, and failure 18 to state a cognizable claim. 19 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within twenty- 21 one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file 22 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 23 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 24 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 25 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 26 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at her address listed 27 on the docket for this matter. 28 1 Sheila K. Oberto 2 Dated: July 1, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28