Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01676/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01676-2/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JACK NORIEGA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF NEVADA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1676-EFB P 

ORDER 

 

Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding without counsel in a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 On October 20, 2015, the court dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to 

amend. That order explained the complaint’s deficiencies and granted plaintiff thirty days in 

which to file an amended complaint. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an 

amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

 A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local 

Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:14-cv-01676-EFB Document 10 Filed 12/02/15 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

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in 

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended 

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule 

regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute 

and failure to state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110; 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Dated: December 2, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01676-EFB Document 10 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2