Williams v. Callen et al

Filing 10

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss With Prejudice for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/26/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty-One Days. This case has been assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. The new case number is 1:18-cv-00187-JLT (PC). (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:18-cv-00187-JLT (PC)

CORRY WILLIAMS,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
T. CALLEN, et al.,

(Docs. 8, 9)

Defendants.

21-DAY DEADLINE

16

CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18

Corry Williams filed this action on February 6, 2018. (Doc. 1.) On February 12, 2018,

19

the Court issued an order striking the complaint because it was unsigned. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff was

20

given 21 days to sign and refile the Complaint. (Id.) When Plaintiff did not comply with that

21

order, the Court ordered him to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for his failure

22

to comply with the court’s order. (Doc. 9.) Despite lapse of more than the time allowed, Plaintiff

23

has not filed any response to the order to show cause and has not filed a signed complaint. The

24

Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal

25

of this action. (Id.)

26
27

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

28
1

1

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

2

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a

3

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

4

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,

5

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to

6

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

7

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

8

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

9

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

10

prosecute and to comply with local rules). Based on Plaintiff’s failure both to comply with the

11

order striking the unsigned complaint and to respond to the OSC, there is no alternative but to

12

dismiss the action.

13
14
15

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice,
for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and to prosecute this action, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a).
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

16

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21

17

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

18

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

19

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

20

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

21

839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:

April 26, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2