UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 29, 2012
BRUCE PATRICK HANEY,
D. CASTILLO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT ACTION BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 8)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
Plaintiff Bruce Patrick Haney is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on April 24, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff declined to extend Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to all matters and for all purposes in this case. (Decline Jurisdiction, ECF No. 6.)
On August 31, 2012, the Court screened the Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, with leave to file an amended complaint by not later than October 4, 2012. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 8.) The October 4, 2012 deadline has passed without Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or requested an extension of time to do so.
Local Rule 110 provides that "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." District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case." Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See e.g., 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 requiring amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE by the District Judge for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute, subject to the "three strikes" provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011), and that the Clerk thereupon terminate all pending motions and close the case.
These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of
Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being
served with these Findings and Recommendation,
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 Recommendation." Any reply to the
objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after
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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153
(9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.