Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00203/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00203-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES G. REECE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0203 JAM EFB P

vs.

D.K. SISTO, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On May 13, 2010, the court found that the complaint stated cognizable claims as to

defendants Sisto and Mimis. The court gave plaintiff 30 days to submit materials for service of

process on defendants Sisto and Mimis. On May 24, 2010, plaintiff submitted documents for

service on defendant Sisto only. Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s order because he did

not submit service documents for defendant Mimis. 

On June 29, 2010, the court ordered plaintiff to, within 21 days, either explain his failure

to comply with the May 13 order or to submit the required document for service of process on

defendant Mimis. The court warned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result

Case 2:10-cv-00203-JAM-EFB Document 11 Filed 08/13/10 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

2

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff

has not submitted the materials necessary to serve process on defendant Mimis, nor has he

otherwise complied with or responded to the June 29 order.

A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for

imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of

the Court.” Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an action be dismissed with or

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule

regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order,

plaintiff shall either comply with the June 29 order or inform the court that he wishes to proceed

against defendant Sisto only and consents to the dismissal of defendant Mimis. Failure to

comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

DATED: August 12, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00203-JAM-EFB Document 11 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 2