Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00054-3/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

SPENCER E. BERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARRINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

1:16-cv-00054-AWI-SKO (PC) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR 

PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(Docs. 1, 16)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Spencer E. Berry, is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 28, 2016, the 

Court dismissed the Complaint as it failed to state any cognizable claims and granted leave for 

Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 16.) More than thirty days 

has lapsed without Plaintiff filing an amended complaint or other response to the Court's Order.

Plaintiff was warned that the failure to comply with the Court's order would result in dismissal of 

this action for his failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute, and failure to state a 

cognizable claim. (Id.)

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 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, a 

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of 

Case 1:16-cv-00054-AWI-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/12/17 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

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, 

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 

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 an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (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).

Based on Plaintiff=s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the order which 

dismissed the Complaint, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to respond 

to/obey a court order, failure to prosecute, and failure to state a cognizable claim. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with 

prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to obey a court order, to prosecute this action, and to state a 

cognizable claim. 

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)(l). Within 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.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00054-AWI-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 2