(PC) Hudson v. Wasco State Prison ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUGENE HUDSON Case No. 1:20-cv-00876-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. OBEY COURT ORDERS 14 WASCO STATE PRISON, (Doc. 10) 15 Defendant. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On April 2, 2021, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff “to show 18 cause, in writing and within 21 days from the date of this order, why this case should not be 19 dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to file a civil rights complaint, failure to submit a 20 magistrate judge jurisdiction form, and failure to submit an application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis or pay the filing fee for this action.” (Doc. 10.) Over 21 days have passed, and Plaintiff 22 has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause or taken any other action since the case was 23 transferred to this Court. 24 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides: 25 “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 26 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 27 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, 28 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los 1 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 2 failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. 3 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 4 order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) 5 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 6 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or 8 mistakenly is inconsequential. Plaintiff bears the responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders. 9 The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 10 ORDER 11 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a United States District Judge. 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to 14 obey a court order and for lack of prosecution. 15 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 16 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 17 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 18 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 19 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 20 may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 21 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: May 5, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28