Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02292/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02292-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JOSEPH BABBITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-2292-TLN-JDP (PS)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

On November 7, 2024, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state 

a claim. ECF 3. Plaintiff was ordered to file, within thirty days, either an amended complaint or 

a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiff failed to comply with that order. 

Therefore, on December 13, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed. ECF No. 4. I notified plaintiff that if he wished to continue with this lawsuit, he must 

file an amended complaint. I also warned plaintiff that failure to comply with the December 13, 

2024 order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff has not 

responded to the order to show cause, and the time to do so has passed.

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

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 

216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 

comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 

Case 2:24-cv-02292-TLN-JDP Document 5 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 3
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

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). 

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 

U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I 

have considered “(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 alternatives.” 

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted).

Here, plaintiff failed to respond to the order directing him to show cause why this action 

should not be dismissed. See ECF No. 4. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious resolution 

of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant all 

support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my warning to plaintiff that failure to 

obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” 

requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

The December 13, 2024 order expressly warned plaintiff that his failure to comply with court 

orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could 

result from his noncompliance. I therefore find that the balance of factors weighs in favor of 

dismissal.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply 

with court orders, and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the court’s November 7, 

Case 2:24-cv-02292-TLN-JDP Document 5 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2024 order. See ECF No. 3.

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02292-TLN-JDP Document 5 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 3