(HC) Singh v. Macomber

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Case No. 2:24-cv-0881-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,

15 Respondents. 16 17 On July 17, 2024, the court screened the petition and found that it failed to state a claim. 18 The court granted petitioner thirty days to file an amended petition. ECF No. 13. Petitioner did 19 not timely file an amended petition, therefore, on September 30, 2024, the court ordered 20 petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to state a claim, 21 failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with court orders. ECF No. 14. Instead of complying 22 with the order to show cause, petitioner requested time to file an amended petition, which the 23 court granted. ECF No. 16. Petitioner again failed to timely file an amended petition, therefore, 24 on December 4, 2024, the court ordered petitioner to show cause why this action should not be 25 dismissed for his failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with court 26 orders. ECF No. 17. Petitioner has not responded to the order to show cause, and the time to do 27 so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted. 28 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 1 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 2 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 3 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 4 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). 5 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 6 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 7 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 8 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 9 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 10 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 11 U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 12 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 13 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 14 In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I 15 have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 16 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 17 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” 18 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted). 19 Here, petitioner has failed to respond to court orders directing him to file an amended 20 petition. See ECF Nos. 13, 14, 16, & 17. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious resolution 21 of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the respondent all 22 support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my warning to petitioner that failure to 23 obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” 24 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 25 Specifically, the December 4, 2024 order expressly warned petitioner that his failure to comply 26 with court orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 17. Petitioner had adequate warning that 27 dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I find that the balance of factors 28 weighs in favor of dismissal. 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district 2 | judge to this matter. 3 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to 5 || prosecute, and failure to comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the December 4, 6 | 2024 order. 7 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 10 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 11 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 12 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 13 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 14 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 15 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 16 1991). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( q Sty — Dated: _ January 10, 2025 q——— 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28