(PC) Thorpe v. Hearn ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENELL THORPE, No. 2: 19-cv-1974 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 C. HEARN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this 19 action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. 20 On March 10, 2020, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 21 31.) Plaintiff failed to file an opposition. Accordingly, on April 13, 2020, the undersigned 22 granted plaintiff sixty days to file an opposition. (ECF No. 34.) The undersigned advised 23 plaintiff that failure to file an opposition would be deemed as consent to having the motion for 24 partial summary judgment granted. (Id.) Sixty days passed and plaintiff did not file an 25 opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment. 26 On June 25, 2020, defendants filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 35.) In the motion to 27 compel, defendants allege that plaintiff failed to respond to their discovery requests. Plaintiff did 28 not file an opposition to defendants’ motion to compel. MASS ETOING IN RAVI OO ere PY ee 1 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[1]n the exercise of 2 | that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate ... dismissal” of a case. 3 | Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court 4 | may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to 5 | obey acourt order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 6 | (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 7 | 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 8 | complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 9 | comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 10 | USS. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 11 | order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 12 | prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 13 Plaintiff's failure to oppose defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and motion 14 | compel suggests that plaintiff is no longer interested in litigating this action. Accordingly, 15 | plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to 16 || prosecute. Plaintiff is informed that the undersigned will recommend that this action be 17 | dismissed without prejudice if he fails to respond to this order. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of this order, 19 | plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for his 20 | failure to prosecute; the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action if plaintiff fails to 21 || respond to this order. 22 | Dated: July 23, 2020 3 Aectl Aharon 24 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 Thorpe1974.0sc 27 28