Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02031/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02031-6/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAIN ALAN PETERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-02031-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 

(Docs. 31, 34)

21-DAY DEADLINE

On May 29, 2015, Defendants filed a motion seeking sanctions and to compel Plaintiff to 

respond to their first sets of special interrogatories and requests for production of documents. 

(Doc. 31.) Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a six-month extension of time, which the Court

denied without prejudice because of Plaintiff's lack of specificity as to what act he was seeking 

the extension for. (Docs. 32, 33.) After lapse of approximately a month, Plaintiff had not filed an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to compel. Thus, on August 3, 2015, the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to 

compel within twenty-one days. (Doc. 34.) More than 21 days have passed and Plaintiff has 

failed to file an opposition or declaration of non-opposition to the motion to compel, or otherwise 

respond to the Court's Order.

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 

Case 1:13-cv-02031-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 09/04/15 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

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, within 21 days, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing 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 4, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02031-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 2