Berry v. Harrington et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED, With Prejudice, for Plaintiff's Failure to Obey a Court Order, to Prosecute This Action, and to State a Cognizable Claim re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/11/2017. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SPENCER E. BERRY,
HARRINGTON, et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR
PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(Docs. 1, 16)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff, Spencer E. Berry, is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 28, 2016, the
Court dismissed the Complaint as it failed to state any cognizable claims and granted leave for
Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 16.) More than thirty days
has lapsed without Plaintiff filing an amended complaint or other response to the Court's Order.
Plaintiff was warned that the failure to comply with the Court's order would result in dismissal of
this action for his failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute, and failure to state a
cognizable claim. (Id.)
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel, or
of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the
Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.
“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a
court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of
Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,
based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to
comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.
Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court
order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to
prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Based on Plaintiff=s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the order which
dismissed the Complaint, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to respond
to/obey a court order, failure to prosecute, and failure to state a cognizable claim.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with
prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to obey a court order, to prosecute this action, and to state a
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 30
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 11, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sheila K. Oberto
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?