Summary
The document is Findings and Recommendations issued in Juan Jimenez’s pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or respond to an order to show cause, constituting failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. The court also orders the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge and provides a 14-day period for objections.
Holdings
- Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the screening order and the order to show cause, failed to communicate with the court, and had received adequate warnings that noncompliance could result in dismissal, dismissal without prejudice was recommended.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to obey the court's screening order and order to show cause.
- Whether dismissal was appropriate under the Ninth Circuit's five-factor test governing dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (10)
- Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)(followed)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…