Hudson v. Phiffier

Filing 23

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Action for Failure to Comply With a Court Order and Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/16/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT HUDSON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
C. PFEIFFER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00982-LJO-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[ECF No. 22]

Plaintiff Robert Hudson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On March 7, 2018, the Court screened the complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file an

20

amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff was warned

21

that if he failed to comply, the Court would recommend dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 22.) More

22

than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the order.

23

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power,

24

impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty.,

25

216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply

26

with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

27

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the

28

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
1

1

sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.

2

2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do,

3

and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted).

4

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the order, this action should

5

be dismissed. Id. This action, which has been pending July 2017, can proceed no further without

6

Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the action cannot simply remain

7

idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

8

this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute.
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

9
10

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

11

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with

12

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

13

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

14

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

15

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:

19

April 16, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2