Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00955/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00955-2/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

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

GALINDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00955-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. 5)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Durrell Anthony Puckett, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 18, 2018, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to 

submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within 45 days, and

enclosed the proper form for Plaintiff’s use. (Doc. 5.) More than 45 days have passed and 

Plaintiff has failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, to pay the filing fee, or to 

respond to the Court’s Order in any manner.

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 

Case 1:18-cv-00955-JLT-SKO Document 6 Filed 09/27/18 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

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 21 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2018 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00955-JLT-SKO Document 6 Filed 09/27/18 Page 2 of 2