Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00941/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00941-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pedro Torres Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action

for a violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. On June 25, 2014, the Court dismissed 

screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), and dismissed the complaint with 

leave to amend. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended 

complaint, which was granted by the Court on July 18, 2014. (Docs. 5-6.) The Court ordered Plaintiff 

to “file his first amended complaint no later than August 15, 2014.” (Doc. 6 at 2, emphasis in 

original.) Although the Court warned Plaintiff that “no further extensions of time will be granted 

absent a showing of exceptional good cause” (id.), Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. 

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure 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 

PEDRO TORRES HERNANDEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPT., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00941 - --- - JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-00941-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 08/19/14 Page 1 of 2
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

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, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure comply with 

the Court’s order. Alternatively, Plaintiff SHALL file his first amended complaint within the same 

14-day period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00941-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 08/19/14 Page 2 of 2