Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01283/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01283-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

ANDREW ARLINGTON RING,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. PRICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:18-cv-01283-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CASE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER

21-DAY DEADLINE

On November 12, 2019, the Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed to 

state cognizable claims and granting him leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 14.) On 

December 6, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff a 30-day extension of time to file an amended 

complaint. (Doc. 16.) Although more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file 

a second amended complaint or to otherwise comply with Court’s screening order.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g.,

Case 1:18-cv-01283-DAD-JLT Document 17 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 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

2

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (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 21 days of the date of service 

of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim and to 

comply with the Court’s screening order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a 

second amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01283-DAD-JLT Document 17 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2