Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02765/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02765-1/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHADERICK A. INGRAM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-2547 LKK EFB PS

vs.

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

OFFICER GARY DAHL #672, 

ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action, which was referred to

the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). On October 5, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Sacramento

Police Department and Officer Gary Dahl. Dckt. No. 54. On October 23, 2009, defendant Dahl

filed an answer to the amended complaint. Dckt. No. 57.

On November 23, 2009, the undersigned directed the clerk to provide plaintiff with the

forms required to effect service on the Sacramento Police Department, and directed plaintiff to

provide to the U.S. Marshal within fifteen days all information needed to effect service of

process and to file a statement with the court within ten days thereafter that the documents were

submitted. Dckt. No. 61. The order also set a status (pretrial scheduling) conference for March

17, 2010, and directed the parties to file a status report on or before March 3, 2010. Id. 

Case 2:09-cv-02765-KJM -KJN Document 14 Filed 05/11/10 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

2

On March 10, 2010, because plaintiff had not filed a statement that the service documents

were submitted to the Marshal; plaintiff had not filed a status report, as required by the

November 23, 2009 order; and defendant Dahl had stated in his status report that he had “been

unable to communicate with Plaintiff in an attempt to prepare a joint status report,” Dckt. No. 71,

the status (pretrial scheduling) conference was continued to May 19, 2010. Additionally,

plaintiff was ordered to show cause why the Sacramento Police Department should not be

dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action against that defendant, and why

plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with the November 23, 2009 order. Dckt.

No. 72 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 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 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”); L.R.

183 (“Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal

Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules.”); and Ghazali v. Moran, 46

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for

dismissal.”)). The order further required plaintiff to file a status report by May 5, 2010, and

stated that “[f]ailure of plaintiff to comply with this order may result in the imposition of

sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” Dckt. No. 72.

Plaintiff has not filed a response to the March 10, 2010 order to show cause, has not filed

a status report as required by the November 23, 2009 and March 10, 2010 orders, and has not

demonstrated that he has provided to the Marshal the documents necessary for service on

defendant Sacramento Police Department. Therefore, the undersigned will recommend that this

case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110.

////

////

////

Case 2:09-cv-02765-KJM -KJN Document 14 Filed 05/11/10 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

1

 If the recommendation of dismissal herein is not adopted by the district judge, the

undersigned will reschedule the status conference and require the parties to submit status reports. 

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status (pretrial scheduling) conference

currently set for hearing on May 19, 2010, is vacated.1

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), based on

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this 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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 11, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02765-KJM -KJN Document 14 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 3