Nims v. Rachel et al.

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/13/16 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. FRCP 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110; 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINETTE NIMS, 12 No. 2:15-cv-2541-EFB P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 RACHEL, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 17 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 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). On August 23, 2016, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 22 § 1915A. The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, explained the 23 deficiencies in the complaint and granted plaintiff thirty days in which file an amended complaint 24 to cure the deficiencies. ECF No. 9. The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would 25 result in this action being dismissed. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an 26 amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 27 ///// 28 ///// 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 for failure to 11 prosecute and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 12 E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110; 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 13 Dated: October 13, 2016. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?