Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01760/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01760-3/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

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

JOSE VELAZQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

O. BEREQOUSKAYA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01760-DAD-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS ACTION

14-DAY DEADLINE

On February 21, 2020, the Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff’s 

complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief and granting Plaintiff leave to amend. (Doc. 

9.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. On 

April 14, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within 21 days, why this action should 

not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 11.) Although more than the 

allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with ... any order of the Court may be grounds for 

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

Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 

that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 

Case 1:19-cv-01760-DAD-SKO Document 12 Filed 05/22/20 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

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g.,

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so 

mistakenly or intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the 

Court’s orders. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has 

chosen to ignore.

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for 

failure to obey court orders and failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. These Findings and 

Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, 

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of 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’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 

waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01760-DAD-SKO Document 12 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 2