Opinion
1:19-cv-00280-JLT (PC)
07-01-2019
MICHELL AJURIA RAMOS, Plaintiff, v. AMR RAMADAN, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(Docs. 14, 15, 18, 20) 21-DAY DEADLINE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 7, 2019, the Court screened the Plaintiff's Complaint, found it failed to state any cognizable claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 10.) The time for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint has now passed without his compliance. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to comply with the Court's order would result in dismissal. (Id.)
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 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, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 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 an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (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). Plaintiff's failure to comply with the First Screening Order and to respond to prosecute this action necessitates dismissal.
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to obey a court order and to prosecute this action, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a), and for failure to state a cognizable claim.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action to whom these Findings and Recommendations will be submitted, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 21 days after being served with 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 is 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, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 1 , 2019
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE