Sisneros v. Mim

Filing 8

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/22/2018 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH C. SISNEROS,

12

No. 2:17-cv-2361-TLN-EFB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

K. MIM,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

16
17

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

18

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).

20

On July 17, 2018, after defendant removed this action from Sacramento County Superior

21

Court, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found

22

the complaint to state a cognizable due process claim against defendant Mim, but dismissed all

23

other claims with leave to amend. ECF No. 7. That order directed plaintiff to submit either: (1)

24

an amended complaint or (2) written notice of his intent to proceed only with his due process

25

claim against defendant Mim and warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result a

26

recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The time for acting has

27

now passed and plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint, indicate his intention to proceed

28

solely again defendant Mim or otherwise respond to the court’s order.
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
11

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without
prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110.

12

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

13

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

14

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

15

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

16

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

17

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

18

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

19

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez

20

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

21

Dated: August 22, 2018.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2