Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02077/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02077-2/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

RAY GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. TATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF NO. 13)

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Ray Gutierrez 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 January 26, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 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. 13 at 13:8.) More than thirty days have 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 

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of this action. Bautista v. Los 

Case 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 03/17/16 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

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 and for 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 Title 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: March 16, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 2