(PC) Adams v. Dahl ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL ADAMS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00852 JLT CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS, AND 14 DAHL, et al., DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 62) 16 17 Paul Adams is a parolee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Kendrick propounded a request for production of 19 documents supporting Plaintiff’s contention that he exhausted available administrative remedies. 20 (Doc. 57-2.) After Plaintiff failed to respond to the discovery request, Defendants filed a motion 21 to compel a response pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 57.) 22 The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to the motion to compel. (Doc. 59 at 4.) In 23 the alternative, Plaintiff was informed he could file a notice of non-opposition—and respond to 24 the request for production— or file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id.) The Court granted 25 Plaintiff fourteen days to comply and warned: “Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may 26 subject him to the Court’s imposition of sanctions, including recommending dismissal of this 27 action for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.” (Id. at 5, emphasis omitted.) 28 Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order. 1 On August 22, 2023, the Court entered an order to show cause, requiring Plaintiff to 2 | show “why this action should not be dismissed as a sanction for failing to respond to Defendants’ 3 | request for production or motion to compel, to obey orders, or to comply with the Local Rules.” 4 | (Doc. 61 at 2.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days to respond and informed that if he failed to do 5 | so, the Court would “recommend dismissal of this action as a discovery sanction and for 6 | Plaintiff's failure to obey court orders and the Local Rules.” (/d. at 3, emphasis omitted.) Again, 7 | Plaintiff failed to respond to the order. 8 On September 15, 2023, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to respond to the 9 | propounded discovery, failed to comply with the Court’s orders, and failed to comply with Local 10 | Rules 110 and 230. (Doc. 62 at 2-3.) The magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed 11 | “without prejudice as a discovery sanction and for failure to obey a court order and comply with 12 | the Local Rules.” (/d. at 4.) These Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff 13 | and notified him that objections were due within fourteen days. (/d. at 5.) The Court also 14 | informed Plaintiff that the failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver 15 | of his rights on appeal.” (/d. at 5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) 16 | Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. 17 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 18 | case. After carefully reviewing the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 19 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 15, 2023 (Doc. 62) 21 are ADOPTED in full. 22 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 23 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate pending motions and close this case. 24 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: _ October 5, 2023 ( Yavin Toa In 26 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28