Robben v. Norling
Filing
31
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/21/2018 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TODD ROBBEN,
12
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-2699-WBS-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GLENN NORLING,
15
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.
18
§ 1983.1 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
19
§ 636(b)(1).
20
On August 3, 2017, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915A. The court dismissed the complaint, explained the deficiencies therein and granted
22
plaintiff thirty days in which file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. ECF No. 19.
23
The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result a recommendation that this action
24
be dismissed. The district judge granted plaintiff’s motion to stay this action in an order filed
25
December 21, 2017. ECF No. 28. That order stayed this action until May 14, 2018, and directed
26
plaintiff to file his amended complaint by the expiration of the stay. The order further
27
28
1
Plaintiff was a county inmate at the time he commenced this action.
1
1
admonished plaintiff that if he failed to do so, “this action will be dismissed in accordance with
2
the magistrate judge’s order of August 3, 2017.”
3
4
5
The stayed has now expired, the time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an
amended complaint.
A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for
6
imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the
7
inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or
8
without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v.
9
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in
10
dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended
11
complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,
12
1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule
13
regarding notice of change of address affirmed).
14
15
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without
prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110.
16
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
17
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
18
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
19
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
20
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
21
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
22
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
23
appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez
24
v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
25
Dated: May 21, 2018.
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?