(PC) Rose v. Johal ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLEVELAND ZACHARY ROSE, 1:18-cv-01600-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. TO DISMISS ACTION 14 A. JOHAL, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. Clerk of Court to Assign a District Judge 16 17 FINDINGS 18 On August 13, 2019, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff Cleveland Zachary 19 Rose failed to state a cognizable claim and granting leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 20 12.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 21 On October 29, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause (OSC), within 21 days, 22 why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and to comply with 23 the Court’s order. (Doc. 15.) Although more than a month has passed, Plaintiff has failed to 24 respond to the OSC. 25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 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.” 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 Plaintiff has done so 9 mistakenly or intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the 10 Court’s orders. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has 11 chosen to ignore. 12 RECOMMENDATION 13 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for 14 failure to comply with the Court’s order and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be 15 granted. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a District Judge to this 16 action. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 19 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 20 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 21 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 22 may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 23 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Sheila K. Oberto 26 Dated: December 6, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27