(PC) Sanchez v. Torres

Filing 13

ORDER WITHDRAWING Findings and Recommendations 9 ; ORDER DISMISSING the Action for Failure to Submit IFP or Pay Filing Fee and Failure to Obey Court Orders, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/9/2022 (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN SANCHEZ,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. RACHELLE TORRES,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01052-JLT (PC)
ORDER WITHDRAWING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 9); ORDER
DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR FAILURE
TO SUBMIT IFP OR PAY FILING FEE
AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT
ORDERS

On July 12, 2021, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to apply to proceed in

17

forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within forty-five days. (Doc. 3.) On July 27, 2021, Plaintiff

18

requested a sixty-day extension of time to comply. (Doc. 4.) The Court granted the request and

19

ordered Plaintiff to comply within ninety days. (Doc. 5.) The Court cautioned: “Failure to

20

comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action for [failure to] obey a court

21

order and failure to prosecute.” (Id. at 2 (alteration in the original)). Plaintiff’s response was

22

due on November 1, 2021.

23

Instead of paying the fee or applying to proceed IFP, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of

24

address and request for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 6.) Consequently, on November 2, 2021,

25

the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause. The order noted,

26
27
28

This Court has twice ordered Plaintiff to apply to proceed in forma pauperis or pay
the $402 filing fee. (Docs. 3, 5.) The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause, within
30 days, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with these
prior orders. Alternatively, Plaintiff may apply to proceed in forma pauperis or
pay the $402 filing fee within 30 days.

1

The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation of
dismissal of this case.

2
3

(Doc. 7 (alteration in the original).) Plaintiff’s response was due on December 3, 2021.

4

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order, and the time to do so has passed.

5

Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides:

6

“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the

7

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

8

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

9

may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los

10

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

11

failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v.

12

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

13

order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987)

14

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424

15

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Apparently, Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or

16
17

mistakenly is inconsequential. Plaintiff bears the responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders.

18

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

19

Accordingly, the findings and recommendation (Doc. 9) are WITHDRAWN1. The Court

20

ORDERS this action DISMISSED for failure to obey court orders.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

23

January 9, 2022

24
25
26
27
1

28

The findings and recommendation are withdrawn due to the elevation of the undersigned to Article III status and
the reassignment to the undersigned in that new role.

2