(PC) Pacheco v. Diaz

Opinion

JESUS PACHECO, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00774-LJO-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ) RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A RALPH DIAZ, et al., ) COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND ) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT Defendants. ) ORDER ) ) [ECF No. 9] ) )

Plaintiff Jesus Pacheco is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 4, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, determined he failed to state a cognizable claim for relief, and granted Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint within thirty days. Over thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is appropriate. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may be granted. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Lia Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These facto guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to tal action. Id. (citation omitted). Based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the Cou \ is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action can □□□□□□ further without Plaintiff's cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the action cann simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. Accordingly, it is HEREB } RECOMMENDED this action be DISMISSED, for failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecut and for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with □□□ Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff □□ advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). A (ee lI pated: _ October 10, 2019 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE