Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00475/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00475-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Robert Medina is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On May 20, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s April 6, 2016, 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. 8 at 

7:1-2.) More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or 

otherwise respond to the Court’s 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 

ROBERT MEDINA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S. SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00475-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A COURT 

ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[ECF Nos. 1 & 8]

Case 1:16-cv-00475-AWI-SAB Document 9 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 2
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

“(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 RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with 

prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief, and failure to prosecute.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30)

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.2d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 

2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00475-AWI-SAB Document 9 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2