(PC) Perry v. United States Penitentiary Atwater ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARETH PERRY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00279-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. TO DISMISS ACTION 14 UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, 14-DAY DEADLINE ATWATER, 15 Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge Defendant. 16 17 On March 8, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that 18 it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. 18.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave 19 to amend his pleading within 21 days. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or 20 otherwise respond to the Court’s screening order. Therefore, on April 22, 2021, the Court ordered 21 Plaintiff to show cause, within 21 days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 22 comply with a court order. (Doc. 19.) Although more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff 23 has not responded to the order to show cause. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that 25 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 26 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 27 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 1 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 2 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 3 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 4 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 5 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 6 1424 (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 mistakenly or 8 intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s 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 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for 11 failure to obey court orders and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The 12 Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action. 13 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 14 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 15 service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 16 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 17 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 18 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 19 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Sheila K. Oberto 22 Dated: June 2, 2021 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27