Alghaithi v. U. S. Department of Homeland Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 Case No. 1:21-cv-00059-AWI-SKO ALI ABDULQAWI ABDO ALGHAITHI, 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR 8 PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER AND 9 v. FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND (Doc. 6) 11 SECURITY and LYNN Q. FELDMAN, TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 12 13 14 15 On January 15, 2021, Ali Abdulqawi Abdo Alghaithi (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed 16 a complaint against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis, which was granted on January 19, 2021. (Docs. 2 & 4.) 18 On April 19, 2021, the undersigned issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed 19 to state any cognizable claims and granting 21 days leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. 20 (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline, and on May 25, 2021, the 21 Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) why the action should not be dismissed for his failure 22 to his failure to comply with the Court’s screening order and for failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. 23 6.) Plaintiff was warned in both the screening order and the OSC that the failure to comply with the 24 Court’s order would result in a recommendation to the presiding district judge of the dismissal of 25 this action. (Id. See also Doc. 5.) Plaintiff has not yet filed any response, and the time to do so has 26 passed. 27 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of 28 a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 1 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. “District 2 courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may 3 impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 4 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s 5 failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 6 See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply 7 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 8 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 9 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 10 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the screening order and 11 the OSC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to obey court orders and 12 failure to prosecute. 13 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with 14 prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute this action. 15 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within twenty- 17 one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file 18 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 19 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 20 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 22 on the docket for this matter. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: July 1, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28