1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA HANKINS, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00720-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE (1) TO OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO 14 AVENAL STATE PRISON, et al., PROSECUTE, and (2) TO PLEAD ANY COGNIZABLE CLAIM 15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16

17 Plaintiff Joshua Hankins is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On April 11, 2025, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 12.) Specifically, the 21 Court found Plaintiff’s complaint named an improper defendant (Avenal State Prison), violated 22 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff failed to identify the prison 23 officials alleged to have violated his civil rights, and failed to state a claim upon which relief 24 could be granted. (Id. at 4-12.) Plaintiff was directed to file a first amended complaint, curing the 25 deficiencies identified in the screening order, or to file a notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 26 days. (Id. at 12-13.) 27 On May 13, 2025, when more than 21 days plus time for mailing passed, the Court issued 1 its Order to Show Cause (OSC) in Writing Why Action Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to 2 Obey Court Order and Failure to Prosecute. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff was ordered to respond within 14 3 days, explaining why the action should not be dismissed, or, in the alternative, to file a first 4 amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 2.) 5 On May 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed an untitled document—docketed as a response to the 6 OSC—comprised of two handwritten pages, a copy of a December 7, 2022, memorandum 7 concerning the City of Avenal’s drinking water, and a copy of a document purported to concern 8 the “Avenal Water District” stating “Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) was found at 361 times 9 above EWG’s Health Guideline.” (Doc. 14.) 10 Because Plaintiff’s May 27, 2025, is unresponsive to the Court’s screening order and the 11 OSC, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s 12 failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute, and separately, because Plaintiff’s operative 13 complaint fails to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted (for the reasons set 14 forth in the undersigned’s first screening order, Doc. 12). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Applicable Legal Standards 17 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 18 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 19 be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 20 or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power 21 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 22 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). 23 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 24 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 25 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. 26 Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 27 order); Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 1 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 2 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 3 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 4 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 5 sanctions.” Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks & 6 citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that 7 must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 8 Liability Litigation,

(9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 9 Analysis 10 The Public Interest in Expeditious Resolution/Docket Management 11 Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary 12 dismissal as directed by the Court in its screening order. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to 13 comply with the Court’s OSC because does not explain why this action should not be dismissed, 14 nor, in the alternative, did he file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 15 Specifically, the Court’s First Screening Order advised Plaintiff that his original complaint 16 was deficient in the following ways: (1) the complaint failed to name a proper defendant because 17 the Eleventh Amendment grants immunity to a state agency like Avenal State Prison, the sole 18 defendant named in this action (see Doc. 12 at 7); (2) the complaint violated Rule 8 because it 19 failed to identify the prison officials (versus the institution) alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s 20 civil rights and thus failed to provide fair notice of his claims (id. at 7-8); and (3) to the degree the 21 complaint alleged Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims concerning water 22 temperature and water quality, Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state any cognizable 23 claims (id. at 8-9).1 Following screening, Plaintiff failed to file a first amended complaint or a 24 notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 days as ordered. 25 Moreover, in the Court’s OSC, Plaintiff was directed to file a written response explaining 26 why he failed to comply with the screening order; in the alternative, Plaintiff was advised he 27 1 The screening order also provided the legal standards applicable to any potential claims of First Amendment 1 could respond by filing a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within that 2 same period. (See Doc. 13.) Instead, Plaintiff filed an untitled two-page handwritten document 3 accompanied by two pages of exhibits. While the Court might otherwise be inclined to presume 4 Plaintiff intended for this filing to be an amended complaint, the filing is wholly insufficient and 5 improper. It completely disregards the First Screening Order. Plaintiff was expressly advised in 6 the screening order that any “amended complaint supersedes the original complaint” and “must be 7 ‘complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.’” (See Doc. 12 at 12.)2 8 The filing is no way amounts to an amended complaint that is complete in itself without reference 9 to the original complaint. Moreover, despite being provided with detailed explanations of the 10 deficiencies3 identified by the Court in the original complaint and the opportunity to cure those 11 deficiencies, Plaintiff’s May 27, 2025, filing cannot be understood to remedy those deficiencies in 12 any way. It makes no reference to any prison officials’ purported violation of his constitutional 13 rights and again refers only to the Avenal State Prison, makes vague and conclusory allegations in 14 violation of Rule 8, and makes no effort whatsoever to cure the specific deficiencies concerning 15 claims one and two. Therefore, the undersigned assesses that Plaintiff cannot cure his pleading. 16 See, e.g., Hartman v. CDCR,

(9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of first 17 amended complaint and finding leave to amend futile where complaint’s allegations belied 18 plaintiff’s entitlement to relief). In sum, Plaintiff made no attempt to cure the many deficiencies 19 identified in the screening order. For all these reasons, this Court finds the first and second 20 factors — the expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket — 21 weigh in favor of dismissal. Carey,

. 22 /// 23 2 Notably, Plaintiff was served with a blank amended civil rights complaint form for use in filing an amended 24 complaint. (See Doc. 12 at 12.)

25 3 See Doc. 12 at 7 (“Plaintiff cannot pursue claims for damages or injunctive relief against the Avenal State Prison in this action”), 8 (“Plaintiff must identify the prison officials whom he alleges have violated his constitutional 26 rights. … Any amended complaint must comply with Rule 8 by clearly and succinctly stating what happened, when it happened, and how each defendant was involved. Plaintiff is advised that simply alleging a ‘C.O.,’ ‘they,’ or ‘them,’ 27 or grouping defendants to more general assertions of overall conduct is insufficient,” and regarding claim one: “Plaintiff alleges only temporary conditions … [and] fails to allege sufficient facts to show any prison official acted 1 Risk of Prejudice to Defendant 2 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal since a 3 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 4 See Anderson v. Air W.,

(9th Cir. 1976). Here, the screening order directed 5 Plaintiff to file either a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the order, or 6 to file a notice of voluntary dismissal, within 21 days. Plaintiff has failed to do so. Because 7 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the screening order and the OSC, his failures amount to an 8 unreasonable delay in prosecuting this case resulting in a presumption of injury. Thus, the third 9 factor — a risk of prejudice to the defendants — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 10 F.2d at 1440. 11 Disposition on the Merits 12 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 13 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). However, 14 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 15 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 16 F.3d at 1228. Plaintiff has not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. He has 17 completely failed to comply with the screening order and the OSC because he made no attempt to 18 cure the deficiencies identified by the Court and has filed neither a first amended complaint nor a 19 notice of voluntary dismissal. Therefore, the fourth factor — the public policy favoring 20 disposition of cases on their merits — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey,

. 21 The Availability of Less Drastic Sanctions 22 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s orders or rules will 23 result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

. Here, the First Screening Order issued April 11, 2025, expressly warned: “If Plaintiff 25 fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, 26 without prejudice, for failure to obey court order and for failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 12 at 27 13, emphasis in original.) Further, in the OSC, Plaintiff was expressly warned: “Failure to 1 action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure 2 to prosecute.” (Doc. 13 at 3, emphasis in original.) Lastly, in the First Informational Order in 3 Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case issued May 11, 2023, Plaintiff was advised as follows: 4 “In litigating this action, the parties must comply with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil 5 Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern 6 District of California (“Local Rules”), as modified by this Order. Failure to so comply will be 7 grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case. Local Rule 110; 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (See Doc. 3 at 1.) Thus, the undersigned finds Plaintiff had adequate 9 warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance with this Court’s orders. Thus, the 10 fifth factor — the availability of less drastic sanctions —weighs in favor of dismissal. Ferdik, 963 11 F.2d at 1262; Carey,

. 12 Summary 13 In sum, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s orders, and in doing so, has failed 14 to prosecute this action. Having weighed the equities and considered the relevant factors noted 15 above, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the action is warranted. 16 Separately, for the reasons set forth in the undersigned’s first screening order (Doc. 12), 17 dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff’s operative complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to 18 support a cognizable claim. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 19 1990). 20 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, 22 based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court orders and to prosecute this action, and separately, for 23 Plaintiff’s failure to plead any cognizable claim. 24 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 25 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within 14 days 26 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 27 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 1 | leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 2 | Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the 3 | exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 4 | reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be 5 | disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 6 | US.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result 7 | in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014). 8 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ June 4, 2025 | hr 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28