Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00364/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00364-3/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 

CHARLES F. ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN DOE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:14-cv-00364-SAB 

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

COURT ORDER 

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE 

 Plaintiff Charles F. Robertson filed this action on March 14, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On 

December 22, 2014, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was screened and Plaintiff was 

ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he was willing to proceed on 

the claims found to be cognizable within thirty days. (ECF No. 17.) On January 23, 2015, the 

action was stayed pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the related cases of Jackson v. 

California, No. 1:13-cv-01055-LJO-SAB, and Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-

LJO-SAB. On October 19, 2015, the stay was lifted and Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended 

complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable 

in the December 22, 2014 screening order within fourteen days. More than fourteen days have 

passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the December 22, 2014 

order. 

 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 

Case 1:14-cv-00364-SAB Document 24 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 

or

sa

co

inc

20

fo

fai

sh

IT

Da

r with any o

anctions . . .

ontrol its doc

cluding dism

000). 

Accord

urteen (14) 

ilure to com

how cause w

T IS SO ORD

ated: Dec

order of the

. within the 

cket and ma

missal of the

dingly, the 

days of the

mply with the

will result in 

DERED. 

cember 2, 

e Court may

inherent po

ay, in the ex

e action. Ba

Court HER

e date of entr

e October 19

dismissal o

2015 

2

y be ground

ower of the 

xercise of th

autista v. Lo

REBY ORDE

ry of this or

9, 2015 orde

of this action

U

ds for impo

Court.” Th

hat power, im

os Angeles C

ERS PLAIN

rder why thi

er. Plaintif

n for failure

UNITED ST

sition by th

he Court ha

mpose sanct

County, 216

NTIFF TO 

s action sho

ff is forewar

e to prosecu

TATES MA

he Court of 

as the inhere

tions where 

6 F.3d 837, 8

SHOW CA

ould not be d

rned that th

ute.

GISTRATE

any and al

ent power to

appropriate

841 (9th Cir

AUSE within

dismissed fo

he failure to

E JUDGE 

ll 

o

e, 

r. 

n

r 

o

Case 1:14-cv-00364-SAB Document 24 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2