(PC) Washington v. Fresno County Sheriff, et al.
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED for failure to obey Court Orders ; referred to Judge Ishii, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/7/2021. (Objections to F&R due within 14-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00478-AWI-JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
OBEY COURT ORDERS
On June 28, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff to complete and return “service documents”
provided by the Court. (Doc. 25.) Despite receiving three extensions of time spanning 140 days
(Docs. 28, 30, 32), Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order. In its order granting the third
extension of time, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply … will result in a
recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 32 at 2.)
Nevertheless, Plaintiff has failed to submit the service documents as ordered by the Court, and the
time to do so has passed.
The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 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, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth.,
City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a
party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or 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 a
court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (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).
It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or
mistakenly is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders.
The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore.
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to
obey court orders. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States
District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time
may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.
2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 7, 2021
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
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?