Redmond v. Rodriguez, et al

Filing 62

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/30/12 ORDERING that defendants are relieved of their obligation to file a pretrial statement. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110; and Defendants motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 61 , be denied as moot. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CESARE REDMOND,

11

Plaintiff,

12

No. CIV S-07-0021 MCE EFB P

vs.

13

W.A. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed November 29, 2011, plaintiff was directed to file a pretrial

18

statement within thirty days. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has failed to comply.

19

A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for

20

imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of

21

the Court.” Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an action be dismissed with or

22

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v.

23

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1252 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in

24

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended

25

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

26

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule
1

1
2

regarding notice of change of address affirmed).
On February 25, 2010, the court directed the Clerk of the Court to send plaintiff a copy of

3

the Local Rules of this Court, and explained that failure to comply with the Local Rules or any

4

order of this court may result in a recommendation of dismissal. Furthermore, the November 29,

5

2011 order admonished plaintiff that “failure to file a pretrial statement in accordance with this

6

order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this action.” November

7

29 Order, Dckt. No. 60, at 4:17-19.

8
9

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants are relieved of their obligation to
file a pretrial statement.

10

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

11

1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R.

12

Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110; and

13

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 61, be denied as moot.

14

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

15

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

16

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

17

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

18

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the

19

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158

20

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

21

DATED: January 30, 2012.

22
23
24
25
26
2