Parnell v. Wasco State Prison, et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING Action for Plaintiff's Failure to Obey the Court's Order and to Prosecute This Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/27/17. CASE CLOSED.(Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER M. PARNELL, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:16-cv-00324-JLT (PC) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT'S ORDER AND TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION WASCO STATE PRISON, et al., (Docs. 11, 12, 13) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 17, 2016, the Court issued an order finding certain of Plaintiff’s claims 18 cognizable and others not cognizable. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended 19 complaint curing the defects noted, or to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on 20 the claims found cognizable. (Id.) That order warned Plaintiff that his failure to obey would 21 result in restriction to proceeding only on the claims found cognizable. (Id.) Plaintiff did not 22 respond to that order, so on December 29, 2016, the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s action would 23 proceed only on the claims that had been found cognizable and directed Plaintiff to submit service 24 documents within 30 days. (Doc. 12.) More than a month passed and Plaintiff did not file service 25 documents or any other response to the December 29, 2016 order. 26 On February 7, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not 27 be dismissed due to his failure to comply with the Court’s December 29, 2016 order and to 28 prosecute the action. Alternatively, the Court directed Plaintiff to file service documents as 1 1 previously ordered or to file a voluntary dismissal. (Doc. 13.) More than twenty-one days have 2 now lapsed without any response from Plaintiff. 3 As stated in the February 7, 2017 order to show cause, the Local Rules, corresponding 4 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel, or of a party to comply with . . . any order 5 of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within 6 the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to 7 control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including 8 dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th 9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 10 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 11 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 12 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 13 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 14 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 15 16 17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s December 29, 2016 and February 7, 2017 orders and to prosecute this action. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 27, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?