Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01376/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01376-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

EVELYN JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:24-cv-01376-JLT-SKO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL

(Doc. 4)

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Evelyn Jimenez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. (Docs. 

1, 3.) Plaintiff filed her complaint on November 8, 2024.

On December 13, 2024, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to 

state any cognizable claims and granting leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 

thirty days or to notify the Court that she wishes to stand on his complaint. (Doc. 4.) The screening 

order was served on Plaintiff by mail on December 13, 2024. (See Docket.) To date, Plaintiff has 

not filed an amended complaint, notified the Court of her intention to stand on her complaint, or 

requested an extension of time within which to do so.

The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 

corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 

Case 1:24-cv-01376-JLT-SKO Document 5 Filed 01/17/25 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

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 based on a party’s failure 

to prosecute an action, to obey a court order, or 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 twenty-one (21) days of the 

date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute her

case. Alternatively, within that same period, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, a statement 

indicating she stands on his original complaint, or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further 

CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if she fails to act within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of 

this order, the Court will recommend to a presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, 

in its entirety.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at her address listed 

on the docket for this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01376-JLT-SKO Document 5 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 2