Santos Valenzuela v. Smith et al

Filing 19

ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign a District Judge to This Action - CASE ASSIGNED to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. New Case No. 1:17-cv-01440 DAD SAB (PC); FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Recommending Dismissal of Action for Failure to Comply With a Court Order 18 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/30/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SANTOS VALENZUELA,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.
SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01440-SAB (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO
THIS ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER
[ECF No. 18]

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

16

On November 2, 2017, the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cognizable

17

claim for relief and granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint addressing the

18

deficiencies identified by the Court. (ECF No. 15.) On November 28, 2017, at Plaintiff’s request, the

19

Court granted Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 16, 17.)

20

After more than thirty days passed, on January 4, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why

21

the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. (ECF No. 18.) Over thirty

22

days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order. As a result, there is no

23

pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may be granted.

24

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

25

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

26

216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must weigh

27

“(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its

28
1

1

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases

2

on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

3

Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

4

These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for

5

a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted).

6

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the Court

7

is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action can proceed

8

no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the action cannot

9

simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id.

10

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

11

1.

12

This action be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and for failure to state

a cognizable claim for relief; and

13

2.

The Office of the Clerk is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action.

14

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:

24

January 30, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2