(PC) Nino v. Munoz ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOE NINO, Case No. 1:20-cv-01722-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION 13 v. 14-DAY DEADLINE 14 J. MUNOZ, et al., Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 7, 2021, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff, within 21 days, to 18 file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or a notice to proceed on the 19 claims found cognizable. (Doc. 9.) After receiving an extension of time (Doc. 12), Plaintiff failed 20 to comply with the screening order within the time provided. Therefore, on September 21, 2021, 21 the Court issued an order to show cause, within 14 days, why sanctions should not be imposed for 22 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 15.) Although more than 14 days have 23 passed, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the screening order or to respond to the order to show 24 cause. 25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that 26 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 27 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 28 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 1 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 2 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 3 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 4 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 5 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 6 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 7 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 8 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or 9 mistakenly is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and 10 Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen 11 to ignore. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to 12 obey court orders. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this 13 action. 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 16 service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 17 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 18 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 19 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 20 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: October 14, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28