FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION (docs. 36, 42, 51 55)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, Vincente Solomon, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's proceeds on claims in his amended complaint against Defendants Carrasco and Dailo (Defendants) for depriving him of outdoor exercise, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

On July 22, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which included notice to Plaintiff of the requirements to oppose their motion. (Doc. 36.) Despite requesting and receiving two sixty (60) day extensions of time (Docs. 42, 51), Plaintiff did not file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion despite lapse of the requisite time. Local Rule 230(l).

On January 12, 2016, two orders issued: (1) a Second Informational Order, which informed Plaintiff of the requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Doc. 54); and (2) an order requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment within twenty-one (21) days of the date that order issued (Doc. 55). In the latter order, Plaintiff was admonished that his failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within the twenty-one (21) day deadline would result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. (Id.)

Twenty-one days from January 12, 2016 lapsed on February 2, 2016. Plaintiff has filed neither an opposition, nor a statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, nor any other response to the January 12, 2016, order.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, "[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." Local Rule 110. "District courts have inherent power to control their dockets," and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (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).

In light of Plaintiff's failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the January 12, 2016, order which required him to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, there is no alternative but to dismiss the action for his failure to respond to or obey a court order and for his failure to prosecute.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure both to obey a court order and to prosecute this action. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a).

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with 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 is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 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.