(PC) Ruiz v. Curry, No. 1:2017cv01454 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action is DISMISSED for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief re 1 Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/20/2018. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. J. CURRY, Defendant. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:17-cv-01454-DAD-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No. 11] Plaintiff Rogelio May Ruiz is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On January 10, 2018, the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cognizable 20 claim for relief, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff 21 was warned that if he failed to comply, the Court would recommend that the action be dismissed for 22 failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not 23 complied with or otherwise responded to the order. 24 The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, 25 impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 26 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must weigh 27 “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 28 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases 1 1 on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 2 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 3 These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for 4 a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted). 5 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the Court 6 is left with no alternative but to recommend dismissal of the action. Id. This action can proceed no 7 further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the action cannot 8 simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. Accordingly, this action is HEREBY 9 RECOMMENDED that this action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 12 after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 13 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 14 Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 15 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 16 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: 20 February 20, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.