Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02137/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02137-11/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS ALBERTO MEZA ROJO,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMADOR JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-02137-DAD-JDP (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO 

COURT ORDERS

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS 

This matter settled on April 23, 2024, after the parties participated in a settlement 

conference with Judge Cota. ECF No. 28. Pursuant to the settlement, Judge Cota ordered the 

parties to submit a signed stipulation for voluntary dismissal within thirty days. Id. On May 23, 

2024, defendant filed a status report indicating that he mailed plaintiff (1) a copy of the stipulated 

dismissal for signature, (2) a self-addressed stamp envelope, (3) a copy of the court’s minute 

order, and (4) a cover letter to plaintiff requesting that he sign and mail the stipulation for 

voluntary dismissal back to defendant in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided. ECF No. 

29. Defendant had not received a response from plaintiff.

Accordingly, on June 17, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to file a response to defendant’s status 

report within fourteen days. ECF No. 30. I warned plaintiff that should he fail to comply with 

that order, I would recommend that this matter be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff 

Case 2:22-cv-02137-DAD-JDP Document 32 Filed 10/08/24 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

has not responded to the June 17 order.1 Accordingly, I recommend that this action be dismissed 

for failure to comply with court orders. 

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 

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 has failed to respond to two court orders; Judge Cota’s order directing the 

parties to file a signed stipulation for dismissal and my order directing him to file a response to 

defendant’s status report. See ECF Nos. 28 & 30. 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 

1 On August 22, 2024, the court received a notice from the Amador County Sheriff’s 

Office stating that plaintiff had been released from custody on August 16, 2024. ECF No. 31. 

Case 2:22-cv-02137-DAD-JDP Document 32 Filed 10/08/24 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

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 June 17, 2024 order expressly warned plaintiff that his failure to comply with 

court orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff had adequate warning that 

dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I find that the balance of factors 

weighs in favor of dismissal.

Therefore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders for 

the reasons set forth in the June 17 order.

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: October 8, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-02137-DAD-JDP Document 32 Filed 10/08/24 Page 3 of 3