Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00300-4/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

PATRICIA BELLOWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. VANG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY COURT 

ORDER

14-DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiff Patricia Bellows is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

failure to protect claims against Defendants Villaboas and Voguel, and Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant McClain. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 30, 2024, the Court issued its Order Referring Case to Post-Screening ADR 

and Staying Case for 120 Days. (Doc. 28.) In relevant part, the parties were directed 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.) Defendants timely filed their notice on December 13, 2024. (Doc. 29.) 

Despite the passage of more than 45 days, Plaintiff has failed to submit a completed 

Notice Regarding Early Settlement Conference as directed. 

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 30 Filed 12/18/24 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

II. DISCUSSION

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.,

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).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order issued October 30, 2024. 

Specifically, despite the passage of more than 45 days, Plaintiff has failed to submit a completed 

Notice Regarding Early Settlement Conference as directed. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

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

Court’s order of October 30, 2024. Alternatively, by the same deadline, Plaintiff may comply 

with this order by submitting a completed Notice Regarding Early Settlement Conference. 

Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause (OSC) may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders

and failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 30 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 2