(PC) Conway v. Quinonez

Filing 13

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE CONWAY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
QUINONEZ,
Defendant.

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
14-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

On October 21, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it fails to

18

state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. 11.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to

19

amend within 21 days. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to

20

the Court’s screening order. Therefore, on December 4, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show

21

cause, within 21 days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court

22

order. (Doc. 12.) Although more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has not responded to

23

the order to show cause.

24

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide,

25

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for

26

the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.”

27

Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising

28

that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth.,

1

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a

2

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g.,

3

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a

4

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir.

5

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

6

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

7

It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so mistakenly or

8

intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders.

9

The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore.

10

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for

11

failure to obey court orders and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. These

12

Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to

13

this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of

14

service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the

15

Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

16

Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in

17

waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing

18

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

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2021

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.