Williams v. Drakaina Logistics ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01436-JLT-SKO 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR 11 PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY v. WITH THE COURT’S ORDER AND 12 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DRAKAINA LOGISTICS, et al., 13 (Doc. 10) Defendants. 14 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 15 16 17 On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff Prince Paul Raymond Williams, proceeding pro se, filed 18 a complaint. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was 19 granted on September 30, 2021. (Docs. 2 & 3.) On October 14, 2021, before the Court screened 20 the initial complaint, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint as a matter of course, see Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. Rule 15(a)(1). (Doc. 4.) 22 On January 3, 2022, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed to 23 state a claim upon which relief may be granted and granted Plaintiff twenty-one days leave to file a 24 second amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order.1 (Doc. 6.) 25 Plaintiff failed to file a second amended complaint by the deadline, and on March 3, 2022, the Court 26 ordered Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to 27 28 1 On January 27, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff until February 22, 2022, to file a second amended complaint, as 1 comply with the Court’s screening order and for failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff 2 was warned in both the screening order and the OSC that the failure to comply with the Court’s 3 order would result in a recommendation to the presiding district judge of the dismissal of this action. 4 (Id. See also Doc. 6.) Plaintiff has not yet filed any response, and the time to do so has passed. 5 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of 6 a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 7 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. “District 8 courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may 9 impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 10 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s 11 failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 12 See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply 13 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 14 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 15 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 16 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the screening order and 17 the OSC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to obey court orders and 18 failure to prosecute. 19 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with 20 prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute this action. 21 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within fourteen 23 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 24 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 25 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 26 27 28 1 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 2 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: April 4, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28