Clayburn v. Maghaddam et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 07/19/17 ordering the court will give plaintiff a final extension of thirty days from the date of this orders entry to submit either the required service documents or an amended complaint. If plaintiff has still not complied at the end of thirty days, the court will issue a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Plummer, M) Modified on 7/20/2017 (Plummer, M).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICKY CLAYBURN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-01995 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

EILYA MAGHADDAM, et al.,
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 have now passed and

25

plaintiff has not submitted the required service documents, an amended complaint, or a motion

26

for extension of time.

27

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

28

order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

served without plaintiff’s compliance and, consequently, this case cannot move forward.

6

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that dismissal without prejudice is the most

7

appropriate sanction in this case. Rather than recommending that this sanction be imposed

8

immediately, however, the court will give plaintiff a final extension of thirty days from the

9

date of this order’s entry to submit either the required service documents or an amended

10

complaint. If plaintiff has still not complied at the end of thirty days, the court will issue a

11

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 19, 2017

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2