Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01173/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01173-3/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 Kenneth Oliver is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff declined United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction; therefore, this action was referred 

to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)

I.

DISCUSSION

On August 18, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for failure to 

state a cognizable claim for relief and granted Plaintiff one additional opportunity to amend the 

complaint. (ECF No. 22.) After receiving two extensions of time to file a third amended complaint, 

Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order despite 

the thirty day deadline. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon 

which relief may be granted. 

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 

KENNETH OLIVER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. DOCANTO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:15-cv-01173-DAD-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 

AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 

[ECF Nos. 22, 26]

Case 1:15-cv-01173-DAD-SAB Document 27 Filed 01/05/17 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

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, 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. 

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 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: January 4, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01173-DAD-SAB Document 27 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 2