Cuchine et al v. Aramark et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/07/15 ordering this action is dismissed. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JUSTIN NEAL CUCHINE,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

No. 2:14-cv-568-EFB P

ORDER

ARAMARK, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Solano County Sentenced Detention Facility at the

17

time of filing the complaint, is proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. §

18

1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

21

On April 2, 2015, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

22

The complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. That order explained the

23

deficiencies in the complaint and granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint to

24

cure the deficiencies in the original complaint. ECF No. 5. The order warned plaintiff that

25

failure to comply would result in this action being dismissed. The time for acting has passed and

26

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order.1

27
28

1

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff
was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current
1

1

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

2

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

3

inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or

4

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

5

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

10

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110, 183(b).

12

Dated: May 7, 2015.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of
the party is fully effective.
2