(PC) Greene v. Ortiz et al, No. 1:2018cv01330 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief and Failure to Comply With a Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/19/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RASHAN GREENE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 M. ORTIZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01330-DAD-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER [ECF No. 8] Plaintiff Rashan Greene is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 26, 2018. (ECF No. 8.) 24 On October 9, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found that Plaintiff failed to state 25 a cognizable claim for relief, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty 26 days. (ECF No. 8.) Over thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 27 otherwise responded to the Court’s order. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted. 28 1 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, 4 impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 5 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must weigh 6 “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 7 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 8 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. 9 Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors 10 guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take 11 action. Id. (citation omitted). 12 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the Court 13 is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action can proceed 14 no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the action cannot 15 simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. 16 III. 17 RECOMMENDATION 18 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 19 1. 20 This action be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 21 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this action. 22 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 24 after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 25 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 26 /// 27 /// 28 2 1 Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 2 in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 3 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 7 November 19, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3