(PC) Conway v. Quinonez
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss 1 Action for Failure to Obey Court Orders and Failure to State a Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/8/2021. Referred to Judge Unassigned DJ. Objections to F&R due by 1/25/2021. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:20-cv-00976-NONE-SKO (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM
On October 21, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it fails to
state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. 11.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to
amend within 21 days. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to
the Court’s screening order. Therefore, on December 4, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show
cause, within 21 days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court
order. (Doc. 12.) Although more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has not responded 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 mistakenly or
intentionally 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.
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for
failure to obey court orders and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 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 8, 2021
Sheila K. Oberto
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?