Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01085/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01085-5/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

TAI EDMUND FRED ABREU,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAVINESS, et al.,

Defendants.

1:15-cv-01085-AWI-JLT (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND TO 

OBEY THE COURT’S ORDERS

(Docs. 22, 23)

21-DAY DEADLINE

The Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found it failed to state a 

cognizable claim. (Doc. 23) The Court dismissed the complaint but granted Plaintiff 21 days to 

file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff has not done so or otherwise responded 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 County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action 

for failure to comply with an order, the Court must weigh “(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) Products Liability 

Case 1:15-cv-01085-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 05/10/16 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

Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Plaintiff is no longer prosecuting this action despite the Court notifying him of the 

requirement to respond. This action cannot proceed without an operative pleading on file and the 

Court cannot justify expending limited resources on a matter Plaintiff has no further interest in 

pursuing. Thus, based upon Plaintiff=s failure to comply with the Court’s order or to respond in 

any fashion and his failure to prosecute the action, the Court has no alternative but to recommend 

the matter be dismissed. Id. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be 

DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) due to Plaintiff's failure to 

state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983, his failure to comply with 

Court orders and his failure to prosecute the action.

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 21

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 waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01085-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2