Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01912/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01912-4/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

VINCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

1:14-cv-01912-LJO-JLT (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. 23, 26, 28)

30-DAY DEADLINE

In this action, the Court dismissed the second amended complaint because it failed to state 

any cognizable claims. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint within 

thirty days. (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff requested a 30-day extension of time to file a third amended 

complaint since he was soon to be paroled. (Doc. 24.) This Court did not find this to be good 

cause for the extension of time and denied the request. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff’s third amended 

complaint was due on December 3, 2015. 

More than thirty days passed without Plaintiff filing an amended complaint or other 

response to the Court's Order. Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within 21 days 

why this action should not be dismissed because of his failure to comply with the Court’s order. 

(Doc. 28) More than 21 days have lapsed and Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to 

show cause. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to comply with the Court's order would result in 

dismissal of this action and a strike would be imposed under 42 U.S.C. 1915(g) since he failed to 

Case 1:14-cv-01912-LJO-JLT Document 29 Filed 01/12/16 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

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 

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 OSC, there is no 

alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to respond to/obey a court order and for failure 

to prosecute. Dismissal of this action should count as a strike under 42 U.S.C. 1915(g) since he 

has failed to state a cognizable claim.

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

prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure both to obey a court order and to prosecute this action, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e (a), and that Plaintiff be given a strike under 42 U.S.C. 1915(g).

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.” 

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01912-LJO-JLT Document 29 Filed 01/12/16 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

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, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01912-LJO-JLT Document 29 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 3