Bonuelos v. Hanford Elementary School District et al
ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action, With Prejudice, Based on Plaintiff's Failure to Obey a Court Order, This Court's Local Rules and Failure to Prosecute signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/17/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HANFORD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITH
PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE
TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(Doc. No. 10)
On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff Robert Bonuelos, proceeding pro se, filed the complaint
in this case against Defendants. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, which was granted on December 23, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 2 & 3.)
On March 30, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order finding that
plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any cognizable claims and granting leave until April 27, 2020,
for plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff filed a request for an extension
of time to file his amended complaint, and the court granted the request and allowed plaintiff until
May 25, 2020, to file his amended complaint. (Doc. Nos. 7 & 8.) Plaintiff failed to file an
amended complaint or otherwise respond to the court’s screening order.
On July 1, 2020, an order issued for plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within twenty-one
days why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the court’s March 30,
2020 screening order. (Doc. No. 9.) When served at plaintiff’s address of record, the OSC was
returned as undeliverable on July 10, 2020. Local Rule 183(b) provides that:
A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties
advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria
persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff
fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days
thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice
for failure to prosecute.
L.R. 183(b). More than sixty-three days lapsed since the OSC was returned as undeliverable and
plaintiff did not contact the court to request an extension or to otherwise explain any
circumstances that may be preventing him from complying with the OSC.
On September 24, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommended
that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s orders and for
failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff was granted twenty-one (21) days in
which to file objections to the findings and recommendation. (Id.) The order was returned as
undeliverable (see Docket) and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the
findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The findings and recommendation issued September 24, 2020 (Doc. No. 10), are
ADOPTED IN FULL;
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey
a court order, this court’s local rules, and failure to prosecute this action; and
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 17, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?