Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00674/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00674-7/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID C. PATKINS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ALOMARI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00674-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

THE COURT'S ORDER AND TO PROSECUTE 

THIS ACTION

(Docs. 34, 38)

21-DAY DEADLINE

In this action, the defendants filed a motion for motion for summary judgment based upon 

their claim the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Docs. 34.) 

Plaintiff requested the Court allow him to conduct discovery on the issue and the Court granted 

this request on April 13, 2016. (Doc. 38.) The order set forth specific parameters as to what 

discovery was allowed, set a deadline for completion of all discovery on Plaintiff’s exhaustion 

efforts of June 12, 2016, and ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion by July 

12, 2016. (Id.) 

Two months past that deadline have now passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition, or otherwise respond to Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00674-LJO-JLT Document 39 Filed 09/13/16 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

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).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 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 

and for his failure to prosecute this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00674-LJO-JLT Document 39 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 2