Summary
This document is an order and findings and recommendations by United States Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota in William Soto v. Aramark, No. 2:25-cv-1066-DMC-P, in the Eastern District of California. The court recommends dismissal without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court’s order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and advises that objections may be filed within 14 days.
Holdings
- Dismissal without prejudice was appropriate because Plaintiff failed to file the required amended complaint after being warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint as ordered.
- Whether dismissal was appropriate as a sanction for failure to comply with court rules and a court order.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130, 132-33 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)(followed)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…