DeVaughn v. Fresno Police Dept. ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 STARRIE DeVAUGHN, Case No. 1:24-cv-00754-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 FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, (Docs. 4 & 5) 14 Defendant. TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 15 Clerk to Assign District Judge _____________________________________/ 16 17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the complaint in this action on June 19 27, 2024. (Docs. 1, 2, & 3.) 20 On July 10, 2024, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state 21 any cognizable claims and granting leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty 22 days. (Doc. 4.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or requested an extension of 23 time within which to do so. 24 On August 14, 2024, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within twenty-one 25 days why the action should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with the Court’s screening 26 order and for failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff was warned in the screening order 27 and in the OSC that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation to 28 the presiding district judge of the dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2. See also Doc. 4 at 8.) Plaintiff 1 has not yet filed any response, and the time to do so has passed. 2 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of 3 a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 4 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. See 5 also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(a). “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” 6 and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. 7 Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 8 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey 9 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 10 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 11 complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure 12 to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal 13 for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 14 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the screening order and 15 the OSC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for her failure to obey court orders and 16 failure to prosecute. 17 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s 18 failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute this action. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED 19 to assign a District Judge to 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within twenty-one 22 (21) 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 1 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at her address 2 listed on the docket for this matter. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: September 12, 2024 /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

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:24-cv-00754

Filed Date: 9/12/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2024