Velez, Jr. v. Lewis et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss for Plaintiff's Failure to Obey Court Orders and to State a Claim; Twenty-One (21) Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/19/2017. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due by 10/13/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBERT VELEZ, Jr.,
LEWIS, et. al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
OBEY COURT ORDERS AND TO STATE A
(Doc. 11, 14)
Case No. 1:17-cv-00026-DAD-SKO (PC)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff, Robert Velez, Jr., a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On May 17, 2017, the Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state any cognizable claims and granted leave for Plaintiff to
file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 11.)
Although more than three months have lapsed, Plaintiff has neither filed an amended
complaint, nor responded to the Court’s Order.1 Thus, on August 18, 2017, an order issued for
Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed for his
failure to obey the screening order, failure to prosecute, and failure to state a cognizable claim.
(Doc. 14.)2 This deadline also passed without a response from Plaintiff.
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
Although the screening order was not returned, one of two Findings and Recommendations which issued and was
served on that same day, was returned as “Undeliverable, Out to Medical 04/30/2017” by the United States Postal
Service on June 7, 2017. Thus, the screening order and both May 17, 2017, F&Rs were re-served on Plaintiff on July
11, 2017. They will also returned as undeliverable on July 19, 2017. At the initiation of this action, Plaintiff was
informed of his ongoing obligation to keep the Court informed of his correct current address and that failure to do so
within sixty-three (63) days of mail being returned as undeliverable will result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
(Doc. 4, p. 5, citing Local Rule 183(b).)
Although Plaintiff has not updated his address of record since his mail was returned as undeliverable, the order to
show cause has not been returned.
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 for
Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order, to prosecute this action, and to state a cognizable claim.
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
twenty-one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff
may file written objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be
captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 19, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?