United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S
ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (DOCS. 3, 5) TWENTY-ONE (21)
K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kaba Bey, a pro se litigant, filed a complaint on May 1,
2019, with an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. (Docs. 1 & 2.) On May 6, 2019, the
undersigned issued an order identifying several deficiencies
in Plaintiff's IFP application, providing him another IFP
application form, and directing him to file an amended IFP
application that corrects the identified deficiencies or pay
the filing fee within twenty-one days. (Doc. 3.) On May 15,
2019, Plaintiff filed a document titled “In Res: Order
to Amend Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis or PAY
Filing Fee, ” which did not address, much less correct,
the deficiencies identified by the Court. (See Doc.
4.) Plaintiff did not file an amended IFP application or pay
the filing fee within the time allotted.
4, 2019, 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 order of May 6, 2019. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff was
warned in both the May 6, 2019 order and the OSC that the
failure to comply with the Court's orders would result in
a recommendation to the presiding district judge of the
dismissal of this action. (Id.)
17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Affidavit
of Fact Writ in the Nature of Discovery, ” which
contains, among other things, reproductions of certain
Articles of the United States Constitution and provisions of
Title 18 of the United States Code. (See Doc. 6.)
The document also states that it
stands as Prima Facie Evidence in Law, Sheila K. Oberto [the
undersigned], is subject to Default, all Matters shall be
Ajudicated [sic] in the International Criminal Court, for
Acts De-nationalization, Genocide, etc. For the Fact, Sheila
K. Oberto, Deliberately, Escheats my Estate, through Acts of
Conversion, which is an International Crime, Violation of
Trust Law, Breach of Fidicuary [sic] Duty, Such act
Constitutes Treason and Trafficking in Person. This Treaty,
is Hereby Ordered, All Questions, Lawfully Commanded, in
Compliance with the Treaty of 1787 and the Constitution for
the United States of America North Continent Ratified 1791,
shall be executed In Good Faith. Failure to do so constitutes
default, breach of contract. Sheila K. Oberto, is hereby
ordered to transmitt [sic] 25 million, legal tender, accepted
for all public and private debts.
(Id. at 3.) Plaintiff's submission again fails
to explain why the action should not be dismissed for his
failure to file an amended IFP application or pay the filing
fee. To date, no amended IFP has been filed or filing fee
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).
on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the May 6, 2019
order and the OSC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the
action for his failure to obey a court order and failure to
it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be
dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to
obey a court order and failure to prosecute this action.
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)(1)(B).
Within twenty-one (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)).
Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this order to
Plaintiff at his address listed ...