Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00380/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00380-1/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 Elvis Venable is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff declined United States magistrate judge jurisdiction on April 1, 2016, and this action 

was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On March 30, 2016, the Court screened and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to 

amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF NO. 6.) Plaintiff was warned that if he 

failed to comply, this action would be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Id.) 

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff received a thirty day extension of time to submit an amended complaint. 

More than thirty days has expired 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 the 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 

ELVIS VENABLE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. D. BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[ECF No. 6]

Case 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB Document 11 Filed 06/07/16 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 

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 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, the Court 

is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. As a result, there is no 

pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may be granted. This action can 

proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the 

action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to 

comply with a court order and failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

This Findings and Recommendation 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)(l). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB Document 11 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 2