(PC) Gaon v. Lau et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED for failure to obey court orders and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted re 9 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint; referred to Judge Unassigned DJ, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/18/2020. (Objections to F&R due within 14-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:20-cv-00182-JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS ACTION
T. LAU, et al.,
Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge
On August 27, 2020, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff, within 21 days,
to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff
failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided. Therefore, on October 15, 2020, the
Court issued an order to show cause, within 21 days, why this action should not be dismissed.
(Doc. 11.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would “result in a
recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to state a claim and to obey a court order.”
(Id. at 2.) Although more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the
order to show cause.
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 and
Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to
obey court orders and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Court
DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to his action.
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.
November 18, 2020
/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?