(PC) Stobbe v. Gill ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FORREST STOBBE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00656-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. TEN-DAY DEADLINE 14 GILL et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Forrest Stobbe, a state prisoner, initiated this action by filing a pro se civil rights 18 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff concurrently paid the filing fee. 19 (Receipt #CAE100045610). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it failed to 20 state a claim. (Doc. No. 4 at 1). Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 5). 21 On February 3, 2023, the Court screened the FAC and found that it stated cognizable Americans 22 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) claims against one Defendant, but 23 no others. (Doc. 9 at 1-2). 24 Plaintiff was ordered to respond within 21 days to advise the Court whether he would (1) 25 stand on his FAC as screened and proceed only on his ADA and RA claims against Defendant 26 Gill in her official capacity, thereby voluntarily dismissing the other Defendants and other claims 27 the Court deemed not cognizable; or (2) stand on his FAC subject to the undersigned issuing a 28 Findings and Recommendation to dismiss the Defendants and claims the Court has deemed not 1 | cognizable. (Doc. No. 9 at 11-12). Plaintiff was advised that if he “fails to timely respond to this 2 | Court Order, i.e. fails to elect and notify the Court of any of the three [sic] options, the 3 | undersigned will recommend that the district court dismiss this case as a sanction for Plaintiffs 4 | failure to comply with a court order and for failing to prosecute this action. See Local Rule 110; 5 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” Ud. at 12). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not responded to the 6 | Court’s February 2, 2023 Screening Order. It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits courts to involuntarily dismiss an action 8 | when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. 9 | P.41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations 10 | omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 11 | (‘[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss 12 | under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110 similarly 13 | permits courts to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with a court order. 14 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 15 Within ten (10) days of receipt of this Order, Plaintiff shall comply with the Court’s 16 previous February 3, 2023 Order, or show cause why the Court should not recommend that this 17 | case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this action and/or his 18 | failure to timely comply with the Court’s February 3, 2023 Order. 19 | Dated: _ March 22, 2023 Wiha. Mh. Bareh Zaskth 21 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28