Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00528/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00528-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES C. MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. SOLEIMANI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00528-DAD-SAB-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF NO. 16)

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff James Morgan is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On June 3, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s February 4, 2016, complaint for failure 

to state a cognizable claim for relief and Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended 

complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to 

comply, this action would be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure to 

prosecute. (ECF No. 16 7:9.) Plaintiff failed to comply with the order, and on July 18, 2016, 

More than thirty days passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the 

order.

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

Case 1:16-cv-00528-DAD-SAB Document 18 Filed 09/01/16 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

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 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, as a 

result, 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 

dismissed, with prejudice, 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 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: August 31, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00528-DAD-SAB Document 18 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 2