Harris v. Fresno County Sheriff's Department ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RONALD HARRIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00052-AWI-SKO 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 11 v. T CO O MDI PS LM YI WSS I F TO HR T F HA EI CLU OR UE R TT ’O S 12 ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 13 DEPUTY R. O’LEARY, et al., (Docs. 27 & 29) 14 Defendants. THIRTY DAY DEADLINE 15 16 _____________________________________/ 17 18 Plaintiff Ronald Harris is proceeding pro se in this action. On two occasions, the Court 19 directed Plaintiff to serve the summonses and First Amended Complaint upon defendants in 20 accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. (See Docs. 13 & 20.) On June 16, 2022, the 21 Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file either proofs of service on Defendants or a status 22 report by no later than September 1, 2022, indicating whether he intends to continue to prosecute 23 this case. (Doc. 27.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed proofs of service or a status report, nor has he 24 requested an extension of time in which to do so. 25 On September 9, 2022, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within thirty 26 days why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s screening 27 order and for failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. 29.) Plaintiff was warned in the OSC that the 28 failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation to the presiding district 1 judge of the dismissal of this action. (Id.) Plaintiff has not yet filed any response or proofs of 2 service, and the time to do so has passed. 3 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of 4 a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 5 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. See also 6 Local Rule 183(a). “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising 7 that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing 8 Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 9 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 10 local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 11 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 12 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 13 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 14 with local rules). 15 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the order directing him 16 to file proofs of service and the OSC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure 17 to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 18 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 19 prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute this action. 20 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within thirty 22 (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 23 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 24 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 25 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 26 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 27 28 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 1 on the docket for this matter. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: October 18, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28