(PC) Watkins v. Tuolumne County Jail
1:18-cv-01385
E.D. Cal.Apr 20, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Raymond C. Watkins filed a pro se action (No. 1:18-cv-01385-SKO).
- On November 15, 2019, the magistrate judge screened the complaint, found it failed to state a claim, and granted leave to amend.
- Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the screening order.
- The court issued an order to show cause on February 27, 2020, directing Plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed; Plaintiff did not respond within the time allowed.
- The screening order had been returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, but under Local Rule 182(f) service at the address of record remained effective.
- The magistrate judge concluded Plaintiff abandoned the action and recommended dismissal for failure to obey court orders and failure to state a claim; Plaintiff was given 14 days to file objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for failure to prosecute/obey court orders | No response / did not oppose | No response recorded | Recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute and to obey court orders |
| Failure to state a claim after screening | Did not amend to cure defects | N/A (court found complaint deficient) | Recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim |
| Effect of returned mail on notice | Did not notify court of address change | Court relied on Local Rule 182(f) to treat service as effective | Service at address of record deemed effective despite return |
| Authority to dismiss as sanction | N/A (no opposition) | Court may use inherent power and local rules to sanction | Court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent to justify dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and impose sanctions, including dismissal)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal is permitted for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal appropriate for failure to comply with court orders)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to file timely objections to magistrate findings may waive appellate rights)
- Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991) (same waiver rule for failure to object to magistrate findings)