From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keck v. Batra

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 14, 2020
Case No. 1:19-cv-00910-JDP (E.D. Cal. May. 14, 2020)

Opinion

1:19-cv-00910-JDP

05-14-2020

BILL KECK, Plaintiff, v. S. BATRA, Defendant.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

ORDER THAT THE CLERK ASSIGN THIS CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Bill Keck is a civil detainee proceeding without counsel and without prepayment of fees in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint was screened on December 2, 2019, and plaintiff was ordered to respond within thirty days. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff, however, filed neither a response to the screening order nor a first amended complaint. On April 6, 2020, the court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. ECF No. 9. That order warned that a failure to respond would “constitute another failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff has again not responded. We thus recommend that the case be dismissed.

To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines and require litigants to meet those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may dismiss the plaintiffs case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.

This recommendation will be submitted to a U.S. district judge presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within 30 days of the service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

ORDER

The clerk of court is ordered to assign the case to a district judge to review the recommendation above.

T IS SO ORDERED.

No. 205.


Summaries of

Keck v. Batra

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 14, 2020
Case No. 1:19-cv-00910-JDP (E.D. Cal. May. 14, 2020)
Case details for

Keck v. Batra

Case Details

Full title:BILL KECK, Plaintiff, v. S. BATRA, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 14, 2020

Citations

Case No. 1:19-cv-00910-JDP (E.D. Cal. May. 14, 2020)