Clayburn v. Maghaddam et al

Filing 10

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/28/17. This case has been ASSIGNED to District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. The New Case Number is: 2:16-cv-1995 MCE AC P. IT IS RECOMMENDED that this Action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICKY CLAYBURN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-01995 AC P

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

EILYA MAGHADDAM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

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

18

U.S.C. § 1983. On June 7, 2017, the court found service appropriate for five of the fourteen

19

defendants named in plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was offered the choice of: (1)

20

proceeding with his claims against the five aforementioned defendants by submitting the

21

appropriate service documents; or (2) filing an amended complaint which addressed the problems

22

with his other claims. Id. The former option required plaintiff to submit the required service

23

documents within thirty days of the court’s order and the latter required him to submit an

24

amended complaint within that same deadline. Id. More than thirty days passed and plaintiff did

25

not submit the required service documents, an amended complaint, or a motion for extension of

26

time.

27
28

On July 20, 2017, the court notified plaintiff of his failure to meet this deadline and
afforded him a final thirty day extension to submit either the required service documents or an
1

1

amended complaint. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to respond within the time

2

provided, the court would recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id.

3

Plaintiff has not complied with or sought an extension of time to comply with that order.

4

The Local Rules provide that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any

5

order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .

6

within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The Ninth Circuit has held that

7

“[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and that in “the exercise of that

8

power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson

9

v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). Defendants cannot be

10
11

served without plaintiff’s compliance and, consequently, this case cannot move forward.
Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that dismissal without prejudice is the most

12

appropriate sanction in this case. It is THERFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall

13

assign a district judge to this case to rule on these recommendations and it is RECOMMENDED

14

that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

15

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

16

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

17

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

18

with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

19

and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

20

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

21

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

22

DATED: August 28, 2017

23
24
25
26
27
28
2