Brown v. Zymey Industries

1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 JEREMY JAMES BROWN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00712-AWI-SKO

10 Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

11 v. T CO O MDI PS LM YI WSS I F TO HR T F HA EI CLU OR UE R TT ’O S

12 ORDERS AND FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

13 ZYMEY INDUSTRIES, et al.,

(Docs. 5 & 6)

14 Defendants.

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

15

_____________________________________/

16

17 Plaintiff Jeremy James Brown is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action.

18 Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 14, 2022. (Doc. 1). On August 2, 2022, the Court issued an

19 order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any cognizable claims and granting leave for

20 Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 5.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed

21 an amended complaint or requested an extension of time in which to do so.

22 On September 16, 2022, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) within thirty

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

24 order and for failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff was warned in both the screening

25 order and the OSC that the failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a

26 recommendation to the presiding district judge of the dismissal of this action. (Id. at 6. See also

27 Doc. 5 at 7.) Plaintiff has not yet filed any response, and the time to do so has passed.

28 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of

1 a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court

2 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. See also

3 Local Rule 183(a). “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising

4 that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing

5 Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with

6 prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure

7 to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

8 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

9 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

10 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute

11 and to comply with local rules).

12 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the screening order and

13 the OSC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to obey court orders and

14 failure to prosecute.

15 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s

16 failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute this action.

17 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within twenty-

19 one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file

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

21 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within

22 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

23 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

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

25 on the docket for this matter.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

28 Dated: October 24, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

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