Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lewis v. Nevada County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 20, 2009

STEVEN LEWIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
NEVADA COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On April 24, 2009, this court ordered plaintiff, who proceeds in pro se,*fn1 to show cause in writing, within 10 days, why this case should not be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to appear at the April 22, 2009 status conference, file a status report, or participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Plaintiff was informed that "[f]ailure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed." Dckt. No. 30, at p. 2.

The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has neither responded to the court's order nor otherwise communicated with the court. It is reasonable to infer that plaintiff has abandoned this case.

As the court explained in its last order, plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order to show cause, and to participate in the scheduling of this case, despite a previous court order expressly compelling such participation, warrants dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing dismissal of an action "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order . . ."); see also E. D. Cal. L. R. 11-110 ("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 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court"). As the court previously explained, plaintiff's pro se status does not derogate this authority. E. D. Cal. L. R. 83-183. This court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed.

Also pending is the motion of defendant Wolfgang Perner to dismiss this action as to him for failure of service of process. Dckt. No. 32. The hearing on this motion, presently scheduled for June 3, 2009, will be vacated, and the court will recommend that defendant Perner's motion be denied as moot upon approval of this court's recommendation that the entire action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the June 3, 2009 hearing on defendant Perner's motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 32, is VACATED.

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the federal and local rules of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. L. R. 11-110; and

2. Defendant Perner's motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 32, be denied as moot.

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 ten days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.