Michel v. Floyd et al
Filing
12
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED, Without Prejudice, for Failure to Obey the Court's Order and Failure to Prosecute re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 4/20/2015. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MARCELINO MOISES MICHEL,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:14-cv-01031 AWI DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
G. FLOYD, et al.,
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Marcelino Moises Michel (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro
18
se and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on
19
July 2, 2014.
20
On January 22, 2015, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend.
21
Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of service of
22
the order.
23
On March 16, 2015, after the time for filing his amended complaint had passed, the Court
24
issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Plaintiff was ordered to file
25
a response, or submit his amended complaint, within twenty-one (21) days.
26
27
Over twenty-one (21) days have passed and Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show
cause, or otherwise communicated with the Court.
28
1
1
DISCUSSION
2
The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power,
3
impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles
4
Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court
5
must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
6
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
7
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” In re
8
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
9
quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not
10
conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted).
Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the
11
12
Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action can
13
proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the
14
action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. This action has been
15
pending since July 2, 2014, and there is no operative complaint on file. Finally, the Court’s order to
16
show cause was clear that dismissal would result from Plaintiff’s failure to respond.
17
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
18
19
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS this action be dismissed, without
prejudice, for failure to obey the Court’s order and failure to prosecute.
20
These Findings and Recommendations 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). Within twenty-one
22
(21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
23
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
Findings and Recommendations.”
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within he
2
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
3
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
April 20, 2015
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?