Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01722/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01722-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE NINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MUNOZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01722-JLT (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS ACTION

14-DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge

On July 7, 2021, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff, within 21 days, to 

file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or a notice to proceed on the 

claims found cognizable. (Doc. 9.) After receiving an extension of time (Doc. 12), Plaintiff failed 

to comply with the screening order within the time provided. Therefore, on September 21, 2021, 

the Court issued an order to show cause, within 14 days, why sanctions should not be imposed for 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 15.) Although more than 14 days have 

passed, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the screening order or to respond to the order to show 

cause.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that

“[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 

Case 1:20-cv-01722-KES-CDB Document 17 Filed 10/15/21 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

that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or 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 a

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (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).

It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or 

mistakenly is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and 

Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen 

to ignore. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to 

obey court orders. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this 

action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 

service of 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’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 

waiver of his 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: October 14, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01722-KES-CDB Document 17 Filed 10/15/21 Page 2 of 2