McCoy v. Philadelphia Insurance Company ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE MCCOY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01329-NONE-SKO 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND TO PROSECUTE 14 PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANY, (Doc. 33) 15 Defendant. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Defendant in the Eighth 18 Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. (Doc. 1-3.) The action was removed to the United 19 States District Court for the District of Nevada on May 15, 2020 (see Doc. 1), and subsequently 20 transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, 21 on September 18, 2020 (see Doc. 12). 22 On May 4, 2021, Defendant filed a status report indicating that Plaintiff refused to cooperate 23 in preparing a joint scheduling report, as required by the Court’s Order Setting Mandatory 24 Scheduling Conference (Doc. 13). (See Doc. 30 at 2.) After Plaintiff failed to appear at the 25 mandatory Scheduling Conference on May 6, 2021, (see Doc. 32), the Court entered an order to 26 show cause directing Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for his failure 27 to comply with the Court’s Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference, (Doc. 13), and for his failure to prosecute the case. (Doc. 33.) The Court also warned Plaintiff that if he did not 1 respond to the order to show cause, the Court would “recommend to the presiding district court 2 judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety.” (Id. at 2.) Although more than the allowed time 3 has passed, Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause. 4 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that 5 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the 6 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. 7 Cal. L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that 8 power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City 9 of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 10 failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Malone v. 11 U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 12 court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 13 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 14 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so mistakenly or 15 intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders. 16 The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 17 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for 18 failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order. 19 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of 21 these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The 22 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 23 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 24 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 25 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Sheila K. Oberto June 8, 2021 /s/ . 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 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