Liang v. Bardini

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ZENENG LIANG, Case No. 1:24-cv-00769-KES-SKO 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND TO PROSECUTE EMILIA BARDINI, (Doc. 14) Defendant.

14-DAY DEADLINE 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the complaint in this action on April 23, 2024. (Doc. 1) 18 On October 25, 2024, the undersigned issued an order directing Plaintiff to file proof of service and/or a status report indicating whether they contend to continue to prosecute this case by no later than January 23, 2025. (Doc. 13.) On January 29, 2025, the undersigned issued an order to show cause within twenty-one days as to why, as of that date, Plaintiff had not filed proof of service, a status report, or requested an extension of time within which to do so. (Doc. 14.)

23 Although more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause. (See generally Docket.)

25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D.

Cal. L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 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 intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders.

9 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order.

11 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: August 1, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE