(PC)Banuelos v. Aguilar, No. 1:2020cv00045 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign a District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED Without Prejudice for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/26/2020. Referred to Unassigned DJ. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Banuelos v. Aguilar Doc. 9 Case 1:20-cv-00045-NONE-JLT Document 9 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT BANUELOS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:20-cv-00045-JLT (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14-DAY DEADLINE A. AGUILAR, Defendant. Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge 16 17 On April 23, 2020, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff to file a first 18 amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading. (Doc. 7.) On May 11, 2020, the U.S. 19 Postal Service returned the screening order as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not updated his 20 address with the Court or responded to the screening order. 21 As explained in the Court’s first informational order, parties appearing pro se must keep 22 the Court advised of their current address. (Doc. 3 at 5.) Pursuant to Local Rules, if mail directed 23 to a pro se plaintiff at his address of record is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and the plaintiff 24 fails to update his address within 63 days, the Court may dismiss his action for failure to 25 prosecute. Local Rule 183(b). 26 Local Rules also provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order 27 of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within 28 the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00045-NONE-JLT Document 9 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 2 1 their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an 2 action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 3 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, 4 or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 5 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 6 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 7 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 8 to comply with local rules). 9 Although more than 63 days have passed since the U.S. Postal Service returned the 10 Court’s screening order, Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his current address. It appears 11 that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or mistakenly is 12 inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rules. 13 The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 14 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without 15 prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign 16 a district judge to this action. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 19 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 20 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 21 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 22 may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 23 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 26, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
