Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01131/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01131-1/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

ANTHONY SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WORTH, et al.,

Defendants.

1:16-cv-01131-AWI-SKO (PC) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT'S ORDER 

(Doc. 6)

30-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Anthony Silva, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis which was not on the correct form. (Doc. 2.) On September 2, 2016, an order 

issued providing Plaintiff with the correct form and directing him to complete and submit the 

correct form within forty-five (45) days. (Doc. 6.) More than forty-five days have lapsed without 

Plaintiff having filed the correct form. 

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, 

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) 

Case 1:16-cv-01131-LJO-SKO Document 10 Filed 12/02/16 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

(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 thirty (30) days of the date of 

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the 

Court’s order and for his failure to prosecute this action. Alternatively within that same time, 

Plaintiff may either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the correct form, or pay 

the $400.00 filing fee for this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01131-LJO-SKO Document 10 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 2