(PC) Jones v. Perez ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND JONES, Case No. 1:19-cv-01553-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION 13 v. 14-DAY DEADLINE 14 PEREZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 On March 19, 2020, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff to file a first 17 amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading. (Doc. 14.) Although the Court granted 18 Plaintiff three extensions of time to comply with the order (Docs. 16, 19, 21), Plaintiff failed to 19 file an amended complaint within the time provided. Therefore, the Court issued an order to show 20 cause why this action should not be dismissed. (Doc. 22.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that 21 failure to comply with the order would “result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed 22 for failure to state a claim and to obey court orders.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has failed to respond to 23 the order to show cause, and the time to do so has passed. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 25 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for 26 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” 27 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 28 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 1 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 2 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 3 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 4 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 5 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 6 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or 8 mistakenly is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and 9 Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen 10 to ignore. 11 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to 12 obey court orders and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. These Findings and 13 Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, 14 pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 15 Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The 16 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 17 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 18 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 19 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: November 2, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28