(PC) Abdullah v. Casaurang
2:24-cv-01223
E.D. Cal.
Oct 10, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Plaintiff Jalaal Abdullah filed a complaint which was screened by the court on July 18, 2024, and found to not state a claim [lines="19-20"].
  2. The court granted Abdullah thirty days to file an amended complaint and warned of potential dismissal for failure to comply [lines="22-23"].
  3. Abdullah did not file an amended complaint or respond to the court's order within the given timeframe [lines="26-27"].
  4. The court determined that failure to respond justified dismissal due to the inherent power to control its docket [lines="29-38"].
  5. The court highlighted that it had considered various factors, including the public’s interest and the need to manage its docket, before recommending dismissal [lines="58-60"].

Issues

  1. Whether the court erred in recommending dismissal of the plaintiff's case for failure to comply with court orders [lines="57-62"].
  2. Whether the factors considered by the court, including public interest in expeditious litigation, support the imposition of dismissal as a sanction [lines="58-66"].

Holdings

  1. The court did not err in recommending dismissal as the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, justifying dismissal based on lack of prosecution [lines="86-87"].
  2. The court found that the factors considered weighed in favor of dismissal, as noncompliance with court orders had been clearly warned to the plaintiff [lines="68-81"].

OPINION

JALAAL ABDULLAH v. A. CASAURANG, et al.

Case No. 2:24-cv-01223-JDP (PC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

October 10, 2024

Case 2:24-cv-01223-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 10/10/24 Page 1 of 3

ORDER

THAT THE CLERK OF COURT RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS MATTER

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT THIS MATTER BE DISMISSED

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

On July 18, 2024, I screened plaintiff‘s complaint, notified him that it did not state a claim, and granted him thirty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 7. I warned plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint, I would recommend that this action be dismissed. Id. at 3. Plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint or otherwise to respond to the court order.1

The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. ; see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.“).

A court may dismiss an action based on a party‘s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended complaint); (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I have considered “(1) the public‘s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court‘s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” (citation omitted).

Here, plaintiff has failed to respond to a court order directing him to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 7. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court‘s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants all support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my warning to plaintiff that failure to obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. ; ; . The July 18, 2024 order expressly warned plaintiff that his failure to file an amended complaint would result in dismissal. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I find that the balance of factors weighs in favor of dismissal.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to this matter.

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

  1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the July 18, 2024 order.
  2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge‘s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court‘s order. See ; .

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2024

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Notes

1
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff‘s copy of July 18, 2024 order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff‘s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
Read the detailed case summary