1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE CONWAY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00976-NONE-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13 v. TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO

OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO

14 QUINONEZ, STATE A CLAIM

15 Defendant. 14-DAY DEADLINE

16

17 On October 21, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it fails to 18 state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. 11.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to 19 amend within 21 days. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to 20 the Court’s screening order. Therefore, on December 4, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show 21 cause, within 21 days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court 22 order. (Doc. 12.) Although more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has not responded to 23 the order to show cause. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 25 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for 26 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” 27 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 1 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 2 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 3 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 4 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 5 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 6 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so mistakenly or 8 intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders. 9 The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 10 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for 11 failure to obey court orders and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. These 12 Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to 13 this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 14 service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 15 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 16 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 17 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 18 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Sheila K. Oberto 21 Dated: January 8, 2021 /s/ .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22

23 24 25 26 27