Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01778/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01778-11/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

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST LEE COX, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

VASUKI DARAM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-1778-DJC-JDP (P)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

On July 12, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered plaintiff to 

file an amended complaint within twenty-one days. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff failed to timely file an 

amended complaint or otherwise to respond to the court’s order. Therefore, on November 20, 

2024, I ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to 

prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. ECF No. 47. I notified plaintiff that if he 

wished to continue with this lawsuit, he must file an amended complaint. I also warned plaintiff 

that failure to comply with the November 20, 2024 order would result in a recommendation that 

this action be dismissed. Id. The deadline for plaintiff to file an amended complaint and response 

to the order to show cause has passed without word from plaintiff.1

1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the July 12, 2024 and November 

20, 2024 orders were returned, plaintiff was properly served. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), 

service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 

Case 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP Document 48 Filed 12/12/24 Page 1 of 3
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

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

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 

216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 

comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). 

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 

U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I 

have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 

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

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted). 

Here, plaintiff has failed to respond to court orders directing him to file an amended 

complaint. See ECF Nos. 46 & 47. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants all 

support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, the court’s warning to plaintiff that 

failure to obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the 

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 

F.2d at 1424. The November 20, 2024, order expressly warned plaintiff that his failure to comply 

with court orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 47. Plaintiff had adequate warning that 

dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I find that the balance of factors 

Case 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP Document 48 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

weighs in favor of dismissal. 

It is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply

with court orders, and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the November 20, 2024

order. See ECF No. 47.

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP Document 48 Filed 12/12/24 Page 3 of 3