Contreras v. Kernan

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING action for plaintiff's failure to state a claim, obey the court's orders and to prosecute this action signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/3/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RUBEN CONTRERAS,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01111-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM, OBEY THE COURT’S ORDERS,
AND TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
(Docs. 8, 10, 12, 13)

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff, Ruben Contreras, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff has consented to jurisdiction of a
United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes in this action. (Doc. 9.)
On June 2, 2017, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff failed to state any
cognizable claims, dismissing the First Amended Complaint, and granting Plaintiff leave to file a
second amended complaint. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time to
file a second amended complaint. (Docs. 11, 12.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint
or otherwise respond to the Court’s screening order within the specified time period. Thus, on
August 21, 2017, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one (21) days why the
action should not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with the Court’s June 2, 2017,
screening order and to prosecute the action; alternatively, Plaintiff was allowed to file an
amended complaint, or a voluntary dismissal. (Doc. 13.) Over a month has lapsed without any
response from Plaintiff to either of these orders.
1

1

As noted in the order to show cause, the Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be

3

grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of

4

the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and

5

in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action.

6

Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may

7

dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to

8

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

9

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

10

amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

11

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424

12

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Plaintiff

13

appears to have abandoned this action, justifying dismissal.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice

14
15

based on Plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim, and Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this

16

action and obey the Court’s June 2, 2017, and August 21, 2017, orders.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 3, 2017

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.