Gaylord v. The Clay House ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ANDREW GAYLORD, Case No. 1:20-cv-00972-AWI-SKO 9 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR 10 PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY v. WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS AND 11 FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE CLAY HOUSE, et al., 12 (Docs. 5, 6) Defendants. 13 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff Andrew Gaylord, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint 16 against Defendants The Clay House and Kevin La Puerta. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff purports to allege 17 claims under (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and 18 (2) California Penal Code § 422.6(a). (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the 19 amount of $100,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff also 20 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted on July 17, 2020. (Docs. 2, 21 3.) 22 On August 27, 2020, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed 23 to state any cognizable claims and granted Plaintiff twenty-one days leave to file an amended 24 complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. 5.) Although more than 25 the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond 26 to the Court’s screening order. 27 On October 5, 2020, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within twenty- 28 one days why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s 1 screening order and for failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff was warned in both the 2 screening order and the OSC that the failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a 3 recommendation to the presiding district judge of the dismissal of this action. (Id. See also Doc. 4 13.) Plaintiff has not yet filed any response, and the time to do so has passed. 5 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or 6 of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 7 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. See 8 also Local Rule 183(a). “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in 9 exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson 10 v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 11 action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court 12 order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 13 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 14 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 15 with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 16 failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 17 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the screening order 18 and the OSC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to obey court orders 19 and failure to prosecute. 20 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with 21 prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute this action. 22 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within twenty- 24 one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file 25 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 26 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 27 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 28 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 1 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 2 on the docket for this matter. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Sheila K. Oberto 5 Dated: November 9, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28