Humes v. Sacramento County Jail

Filing 13

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/1/2018 ORDERING Clerk of Court to randomly assign a district judge to this action and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed for failure to abide by an order of this court. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after the filing date of 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

JON HUMES,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-1265 AC P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER and

SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights

18

complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is referred to the undersigned United

19

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). By order

20

filed May 23, 2018, plaintiff was directed to submit, within thirty days, an application to proceed

21

in forma pauperis or to pay the full filing fee. See ECF No. 3. The court informed plaintiff that

22

“failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.”

23

Id. at 2. The court extended the time for plaintiff’s compliance by orders filed June 13, 2018 and

24

July 11, 2018. ECF Nos. 5, 10. The most recent order set a final deadline of 14 days, or July 25,

25

2018. See ECF No. 10.

26

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s July 11, 2018 order. Under some

27

circumstances, a pro se litigant’s failure to respond to an order of the court may warrant a

28

reminder or order to show cause. Not in this case. Plaintiff has filed more than forty pro se cases
1

1

in this court in less than a year; such burdening of the court requires that plaintiff be required to

2

abide by the Local and Federal Rules, and to be held accountable in responding to the court’s

3

orders.

4

Plaintiff’s failure to abide by an order of this court authorizes the dismissal of this action

5

under both the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Local Rule 110 provides that

6

failure to comply with court orders or rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all

7

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Similarly, the

8

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or to

9

comply with the rules or orders of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

10
11
12
13
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to randomly
assign a district judge to this action.
Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to abide by an
order of this court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

15

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

16

days after the filing date of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

17

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

18

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within

19

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

20

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

21

DATED: August 1, 2018

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2