(PC) Sanders v. Grimes

Opinion

TROY ALEXANDER SANDERS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01285-AWI-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO v. PROSECUTE AND OBEY A COURT ORDER GRIMES, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. On December 11, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 45.) Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). Therefore, on February 2, 2021, the Court issued an order to show cause within 21 days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 47.) The Court alternatively provided that Plaintiff could file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition within that same time. (Id.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” (Id.) Although more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the order to show cause and Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or mistakenly is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and obey a court order. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2021 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE