Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 14, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional 

30 days from the date of service of the Order to amend his complaint or notify the Court whether he 

wished to proceed on his cognizable claims. (Doc. 20). The Court specifically advised Plaintiff that 

this was his “only extension of time to amend his complaint.” Id. at 2 (emphasis in the original). 

More than 30 days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to amend his complaint or otherwise respond to 

the Court’s 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 

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW 

BOARD, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00757 – JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER 

(Doc. 20).

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 21 Filed 06/19/13 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order. In the 

alternative, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint or notify the court whether he wishes to proceed 

on his cognizable claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 21 Filed 06/19/13 Page 2 of 2