Opinion
2:22-cv-01292-TL-JRC
03-13-2023
TODD M KINGMA, Plaintiff, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY CORRECTIONS BUREAU, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on referral from the District Court and on plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on September 12, 2022. However, plaintiff has not responded to the Court's orders or filed anything since November 2022, which suggests that plaintiff has abandoned this action. Therefore, the Court recommends that the District Court dismiss plaintiff's action without prejudice for failing to prosecute his case and for not complying with Court orders.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this § 1983 action in September 2022 when he filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkt. 1. The Clerk's office issued a notice informing plaintiff that his IFP application was deficient. See Dkt. 2. However, the notice was returned as undeliverable on September 23, 2022. See Dkt. 3. On October 7, 2022, plaintiff updated his address with the Court. See Dkt. 4. Because it appeared that he did not receive the Clerk's notice, the Court ordered plaintiff to correct his IFP application. See Dkt. 5. On November 14, 2022, plaintiff filed a correct IFP form. See Dkt. 6.
On December 16, 2022, after screening plaintiff's proposed complaint, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause or amend his proposed complaint because it failed to state a claim against the named defendants. See Dkt. 8. The Court gave plaintiff until January 20, 2023, to respond. See id. at 6. However, the Court's order was returned to the Clerk's office as undeliverable. See Dkt. 9. On February 6, 2023, the Court issued an order extending the deadline for plaintiff to respond to the Court's order to show cause. See Dkt. 10 (extending the deadline to March 3, 2023).
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's orders.
DISCUSSION
Rule 41(b), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allows a Court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any Court order. See also Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986) (“The district court has the inherent power sua sponte to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).
Plaintiff has not filed anything in this action since November 14, 2022. See Dkt. 6. The Court has provided multiple opportunities for plaintiff to participate in this matter to no avail. Therefore, the Court recommends dismissal of this matter without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order and for failure to prosecute. No certificate of appealability shall issue.
CONCLUSION
This matter should be dismissed without prejudice and no certificate of appealability should be issued.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on March 31, 2023, as noted in the caption.