Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01659/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01659-1/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

T.L. CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01659-DAD-JLT (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS ACTION

14-DAY DEADLINE

On November 20, 2019, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff failed to state a 

cognizable claim in his complaint and granting him leave to amend. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff failed to 

file an amended complaint or to otherwise respond to the Court’s order. Thus, on December 30, 

2019, the Court issued an order to show cause (OSC), within 21 days, why this action should not 

be dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s order and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 9.) 

Although more than a month has passed, Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC.

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 1:18-cv-01659-DAD-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/04/20 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 comply with the Court’s order and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be 

granted. 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: February 3, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01659-DAD-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 2