(PC) Williams v. Romero

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, No. 2:17-cv-1884 TLN DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ROMERO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. §1983. On September 8, 2023, this court ordered the parties to file pretrial statements. 19 Plaintiff’s statement was due February 23, 2024. (ECF No. 195.) He has not filed one. 20 Defendants timely filed their statement on March 8, 2024. (ECF No. 196.) 21 Pretrial statements under Local Rule 281 are a necessary step in preparing this case for 22 trial. In the September 8 order, this court advised the parties that “failure to file a pretrial 23 statement may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 24 195 at 5.) Plaintiff has had more than ample time to prepare and file a pretrial statement. He has 25 failed to file the statement or seek an extension of time to do so. Based on plaintiff’s failure to 26 prosecute this action in any way since the issuance of the September 8 order, this court finds any 27 sanction short of dismissal would be futile. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; E.D. Cal. R. 110. 28 //// 1 Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this 2 action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. 3 These findings and recommendations will be 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 twenty-one days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written 6 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 7 Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 8 specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 9 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 DATED: March 25, 2024 11 12 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D DL BB P: r9 i soner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/will1884.fr dism