(PC) Barnhart v. Youngblood ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES BARNHART, Case No.: 1:21-cv-00984 SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 v. DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY 14 DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al., COURT ORDER 15 Defendants. Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge 16 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 17 18 Plaintiff James Barnhart is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 22, 2021. (Doc. 1.) On November 9, 2022, this Court 22 issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 8.) The Court found Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any 23 cognizable claim against any named defendant. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff was given the opportunity to 24 amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the screening order. (Id. at 6-8.) 25 Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint, or, alternatively, to file a notice of voluntary 26 dismissal, within 21 days of the date of service of the screening order. (Id. at 9-10.) 27 More than 21 days have now passed, and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that 3 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 4 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 5 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 6 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 7 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 8 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 9 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 10 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 11 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 12 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 13 In the Court’s November 9, 2022 screening order, Plaintiff was ordered either to file an 14 amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 days. (Doc. 8.) The order was 15 served on Plaintiff at his address on record with the Court: 1338 S. Union Ave., Bakersfield, CA 16 93307. (See Doc. 6 [Change of Address].) No mail directed to Plaintiff has been returned to the 17 Court from the United States Postal Service. Despite the passing of more than 21 days, Plaintiff 18 has failed to comply with the Court’s order. Plaintiff was previously advised that a failure to 19 comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for 20 failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (Doc. 8 at 10.) 21 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so mistakenly or 22 intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders. 23 The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 24 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 25 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 26 without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to obey court orders. The Court 27 DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action. 1 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 2 service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the 3 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 4 Recommendations.” A party’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 5 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 6 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: December 8, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27