Epperson v. United States ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHRIS EPPERSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-00855-SKO 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 11 v. T CO O MDI PS LM YI WSS I F TO HR T F HA EI L CU OR UE R TT ’O S 12 ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 13 UNITED STATES, et al., (Docs. 6 & 7) 14 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 15 Clerk to Assign District Judge _____________________________________/ 16 17 18 On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the complaint in 19 this action. (Docs. 1, 2.) 20 On September 8, 2022, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to 21 state any cognizable claims and granting leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, or 22 otherwise state that he stands on his complaint, within thirty days. (Doc. 6.) To date, Plaintiff has 23 not filed an amended complaint, a statement indicating he stands on his complaint, or requested an 24 extension of time in which to do so. 25 On October 18, 2022, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within twenty- 26 one 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. 7.) Plaintiff was warned in both the screening 28 order and the OSC that the failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a 1 recommendation to the presiding district judge of the dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2. See also 2 Doc. 6 at 8.) Plaintiff has not yet filed any response, 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, with 9 prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure 10 to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 11 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 12 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 13 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute 14 and to comply with local rules). 15 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the screening order and 16 the OSC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to obey court orders and 17 failure to prosecute. 18 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s 19 failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute this action. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED 20 to assign a District Judge to 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 twenty- 23 one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file 24 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 25 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 26 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 27 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 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: November 22, 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