Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01081/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01081-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERNANDO ABURTO RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. YOUNGBLOOD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01081-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF NOs. 13, 14)

Plaintiff Fernando Ramirez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

On May 13, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s January 13, 2016, first amended

complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief and Plaintiff was granted thirty days to 

file an amended complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff was warned that 

if he failed to comply, this action would be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim

and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 13 at 7:2.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, and 

on June 21, 2016, an order to show cause was entered, directing Plaintiff to show cause, within 

thirty days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to 

comply with a Court order. (ECF No. 14.) More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on August 12, 2015. (ECF No. 5.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01081-SAB Document 15 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

not complied with or otherwise responded to the order.

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of this action. Bautista v. Los 

Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, 

the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 

court’s need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 

policy of favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 

2006)(internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to 

do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation 

omitted).

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, as a 

result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may be granted, 

and the Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to state a cognizable 

claim for relief. Id. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim for 

relief, and failure to prosecute; and

2. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01081-SAB Document 15 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 2