Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00379/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00379-1/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

GERROD L. HERNDON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE SUPREME COURT 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00379-JLT (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY 

A COURT ORDER AND TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM

(Doc. 9)

Gerrod Herndon claims the trial court imposed a sentence that was too harsh for the crime 

of which he was convicted. Because it appeared that Plaintiff’s claims are bared by Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994), on June 23, 2016, the Court dismissed the First 

Amended Complaint and granted Plaintiff one last opportunity to cure the defects in his pleading 

within twenty-one days. (Doc. 9.) Nearly double the allotted time has passed without a response 

from Plaintiff. 

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, 

Case 1:16-cv-00379-JLT Document 10 Filed 08/05/16 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

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).

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the order dismissing the First 

Amended Complaint with leave to amend would result in dismissal for failure to obey a court 

order and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 9.) Dismissal is thus appropriate. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, because of 

Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s order that issued on June 23, 2016 and for failure to 

state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00379-JLT Document 10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 2