Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01381/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01381-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kings County Probation
Defendant
Kings County Sheriff
Defendant
Jose Reymundo Leal
Plaintiff
Mazuka
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, Jose Reymundo Leal, is a prisoner in the custody of Wasco State Prison. On 

October 2, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(“Section 1983”) against Defendants Kings County Sheriff, Kings County Probation, and 

“Mazuka,” Probation Officer at Kings County Probation. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application 

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which was granted on October 7, 2019. 

(Docs. 2, 3.) 

On November 21, 2019, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed 

to state any cognizable claims and granted Plaintiff twenty-one days leave to file an amended 

complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. 5.) Although more than 

the allowed time passed, Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the 

Court’s screening order.

On February 7, 2020, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within twenty-one 

days why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s screening 

order and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff was warned in both the screening order and 

JOSE REYMUNDO LEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

KINGS COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01381-NONE-SKO 

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. 1, 5, 7)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:19-cv-01381-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 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

the OSC that the failure to comply with the Court's order would result in a recommendation to the 

presiding district judge of the dismissal of this action. (Id. See also Doc. 5.) Plaintiff has not yet 

filed any response.

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. See also

Local Rule 183(a). “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 screening order and 

the OSC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to respond to/obey a court 

order, failure to prosecute, and failure to state a cognizable claim.

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

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute this action, and failure to 

state a cognizable claim.

These Findings and Recommendation 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)(B). Within twentyone (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” 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)).

Case 1:19-cv-01381-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 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

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 

on the docket for this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01381-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 3