Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00587/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00587-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Brewer
Petitioner
Jeff Macomber
Respondent

Document Text:

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

CHARLES BREWER,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:24-cv-0587-KJM-JDP (P)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

On July 17, 2024, I screened the petition and found that it failed to state a claim. I granted 

petitioner thirty days to file an amended petition. ECF No. 4. Petitioner failed to timely file an 

amended petition. Therefore, on November 5, 2024, I ordered petitioner to show cause why this 

action should not be dismissed for his failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to 

comply with court orders. ECF No. 9. Petitioner has not responded to the order to show cause,

and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted.

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 

Case 2:24-cv-00587-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 12/04/24 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

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, petitioner has failed to respond to court orders directing him to file an amended 

petition. See ECF Nos. 4 & 9. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious resolution of 

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

support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my warning to petitioner 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. 

Specifically, the November 5, 2024 order expressly warned petitioner that his failure to comply 

with court orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 9. Petitioner had adequate warning that 

dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I 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 state a claim, failure to 

prosecute, and failure to comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the November 5, 

2024 order.

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

Case 2:24-cv-00587-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 12/04/24 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

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: December 4, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00587-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 3