(PC) Williams v. Sandham et al, No. 2:2005cv00164 - Document 129 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/6/2010 ORDERING that dfts are RELIEVED of their obligation to file a pretrial statement; and the hearings on their motions to dismiss are VACATED; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute; dfts' motions to dismiss be denied as moot; and the clerk be directed to close the case. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF

(PC) Williams v. Sandham et al Doc. 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CURTIS J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 No. CIV S-05-0164 JAM EFB P vs. R. W. SANDHAM, et al., ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. / 15 16 Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending are defendants motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute. As 18 defendants correctly point out in their motions, plaintiff has failed to timely file a pretrial 19 statement in accord with the district judge’s September 30, 2010 order. 20 A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 21 imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of 22 the Court.” Local Rule 11-110. The court may recommend that an action be dismissed with or 23 without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. 24 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1252 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in 25 dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended 26 complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule 2 regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 3 On July 7, 2005, the court directed the Clerk of the Court to send plaintiff a copy of the 4 Local Rules of this Court, and explained that failure to comply with the Local Rules or any order 5 of this court may result in a recommendation of dismissal. Furthermore, on January 6, 2006, the 6 court issued a scheduling order stating that in the event this action survived any dispositive 7 motions that were filed, the parties would be required to file pretrial statements pursuant to then 8 Local Rule 16-281 and further admonished plaintiff that “failure to file a pretrial statement may 9 result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute 10 11 or judgment by default.” See Order at Dckt. No. 28. The September 30, 2010 order required plaintiff to file his pretrial statement within thirty 12 days. The thirty-day period has passed and plaintiff has not filed a pretrial statement or 13 otherwise responded to that order. Accordingly, defendants need not file a pretrial statement and 14 the undersigned recommends this action be dismissed. 15 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 16 1. Defendants are relieved of their obligation to file a pretrial statement; and 17 2. The hearings on their motions to dismiss are vacated. 18 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 19 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110; 21 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss be denied as moot; and 22 3. The Clerk be directed to close the case. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after 25 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 26 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 2 1 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 2 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 3 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 DATED: December 6, 2010. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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.