(PC) Rodriguez v. Agostini ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No.:1:18-cv-01565-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE 13 v. TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 WARDEN FISHER, et al., (Doc. 36) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On September 3, 2020, this Court issued findings and recommendations for Plaintiff’s 18 Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim to be dismissed for failure to exhaust 19 administrative remedies, with leave to amend his complaint to assert a claim under the Americans 20 with Disabilities Act. (Doc. 17.) Instead of filing objections to the findings and 21 recommendations, Plaintiff sought multiple extensions of time to file a first amended complaint, 22 which the Court granted. (See Docs. 18–32.) In its order granting Plaintiff’s request for a tenth 23 extension of time, the Court cautioned that “no further extensions will be granted absent 24 evidence of extraordinary circumstances.” (Doc. 32 (alteration in original).) 25 In response, on June 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed an eleventh motion for an extension of time to 26 file an amended complaint. (Doc. 33.) On June 9, 2021, the Court issued findings and 27 recommendations to dismiss action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing 28 suit. (Doc. 34.) The Court advised Plaintiff that objections must be filed within fourteen days of 1 service of the findings and recommendations. Id. 2 Instead of filing objections, Plaintiff again filed a motion for an extension of time to file a 3 first amended complaint. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff alleged that he was bed-ridden because of a spinal 4 injury. (Id.) On July 13, 2021, accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court excused 5 Plaintiff’s inability to meet the prior deadline and granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of 6 time. (Doc. 36.) The Court ordered as follows: 7 . . . Plaintiff SHALL file a first amended complaint on or before July 25, 2021. (Doc. 35.) Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a voluntary dismissal if he is unable to 8 prosecute this case. Failure to comply with this order will result in a 9 recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for failure to comply with a court 10 order. No further extensions of time will be granted. 11 (Id. at 2 (alteration in original).) 12 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that 13 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 14 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 15 L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and in exercising that 16 power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of 17 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 18 failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. 19 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 20 order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) 21 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 22 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 23 The July 25, 2021 deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond. Apparently, 24 Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or mistakenly is 25 inconsequential. Plaintiff bears the responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court 26 declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 27 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to 28 comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. (See Doc. 36.) 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 3 service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 4 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 6 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 7 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: August 11, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28