Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01243-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK LORENZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01243-KES-SKO

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY THIS 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR A FAILURE TO OBEY COURT 

ORDERS

14-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Patrick Lorenz is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 29, 2024, this Court issued its Order Referring Case to Post-Screening ADR and 

Staying Case for 90 Days. (See Doc. 24.) The parties were ordered to file “the attached notice, 

indicating their agreement to proceed to an early settlement conference or their belief that 

settlement is not achievable at this time” within 45 days of the date of the order. (Id. at 2.) The 

notice form was provided to the parties for their use. (Id. at 3-4.) 

On July 9, 2024, Defendants timely filed a notice that an early settlement conference 

would be productive and set forth their willingness to engage in an early settlement conference in 

this matter. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff has failed to file a timely notice.

Case 1:23-cv-01243-KES-SKO Document 27 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 3
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

II. DISCUSSION

The Local Rules,1corresponding 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.,

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).

More than 45 days have passed following issuance of the Court’s May 29, 2024, order 

referring this matter for an early settlement conference. Plaintiff has failed to file the required

notice, indicating whether he wishes to participate in an early settlement conference, as ordered

by the Court. Nor has Plaintiff sought an extension of time within which to file the notice. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 days of 

the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 

with the Court’s order of May 29, 2024. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file

the notice provided with the Court’s May 29, 2024, order, indicating his agreement to 

participating in an early settlement conference or his belief that settlement is not achievable at 

this time. 

1

In this Court’s August 22, 2023, order, Plaintiff was advised “the parties must comply with this Order, 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), and the Local Rules of the United States District 

Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”) .... Failure to so comply with be grounds for 

imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case.” (See Doc. 2 at 1 [First Informational 

Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case].) The same order states “all Court deadlines are 

strictly enforced. Requests for extensions of time must be filed before the deadline expires and must state 

good reason for the request.” (Id. at 5.) 

Case 1:23-cv-01243-KES-SKO Document 27 Filed 07/17/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

WARNING: Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause (OSC) will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

obey court orders and failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01243-KES-SKO Document 27 Filed 07/17/24 Page 3 of 3