(HC) Baker v. Superior Courts of California

Filing 16

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/6/2025 ORDERING that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to this matter; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice and that the Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. District Judge Dena M. Coggins and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson assigned for all further proceedings. Referred to District Judge Dena M. Coggins. Objections due within 14 days of service of these findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 2:24-cv-0476-DC-JDP P. (Deputy Clerk HAH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMAUL LEE BAKER,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 2:24-cv-0476-JDP (P)

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER; FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

SUPERIOR COURTS OF CALIFORNIA,
et al.,
Respondents.

17

On October 2, 2024, I screened the petition and found that it failed to state a claim. I

18

granted petitioner thirty days to file an amended petition. ECF No. 14. Petitioner failed to timely

19

file an amended petition. Therefore, on November 27, 2024, I ordered petitioner to show cause

20

why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and

21

failure to comply with court orders. ECF No. 15. Petitioner has not responded to the order to

22

show cause, and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted.

23

The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that

24

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty.,

25

216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to

26

comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the

27

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”).

28

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to
1

1

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54

2

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

3

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended

4

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to

5

comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.

6

U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court

7

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of

8

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

9

In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I

10

have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s

11

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

12

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.”

13

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted).

14

Here, petitioner has failed to respond to court orders directing him to file an amended

15

petition. See ECF Nos. 14 & 15. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious resolution of

16

litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the respondent all

17

support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my warning to petitioner that failure to

18

obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives”

19

requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.

20

Specifically, the November 27, 2024 order expressly warned petitioner that his failure to comply

21

with court orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 15. Petitioner had adequate warning that

22

dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I find that the balance of factors

23

weighs in favor of dismissal.

24
25

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district
judge to this matter.

26

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

27

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to

28

prosecute, and failure to comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the November 27,
2

1

2024 order.

2

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

3

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

4

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

5

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the

6

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to

7

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed

8

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

9

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

10

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

11

1991).

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
Dated:

January 6, 2025

15

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3