Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01887/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01887-3/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

JOSE RIVERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOZANO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01887-JLT (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 

AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. 15) 

On November 22, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with 

leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 15.) That order directed that if Plaintiff desired 

additional time, he was required to file a motion seeking an extension prior to that deadline. (Id.) 

The order also clearly stated that if Plaintiff failed to comply would result in dismissal of the 

action for his failure to obey a court order and for his failure to state a cognizable claim. (Id.) 

More than 30 days have now lapsed without any response from Plaintiff.

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, 

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 16 Filed 01/10/17 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

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, the Court ORDERS that this action is DISMISSED due to Plaintiff’s 

failure comply with the Court’s orders that issued on January 28, 2016, and April 19, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01887-JLT Document 16 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 2