Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01787/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01787-1/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

CHRISTOPHER RAINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. GUEMBE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01787-BAM-PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, 

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF NO. 7)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Christopher Raines is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1

On February 25, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s November 30, 2015, complaint 

with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to file 

an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order, this action would be dismissed for 

failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim. (Id. at 5:12.) The deadline for Plaintiff 

to file his amended complaint has passed, and he has not complied with or otherwise responded 

to the Court’s order. 

Local Rule110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on November 30, 2015. (ECF No. 3.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01787-BAM Document 8 Filed 04/07/16 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

any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 

within the inherent power of the Court.” District Courts have the inherent power to control their 

dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions, including, where 

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 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, 

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 

46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); 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, 130-33 (9th 

Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause, within

fourteen (14) days of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s February 25, 2016, order, for failure to state a 

claim, and for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01787-BAM Document 8 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 2