Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01532/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01532-1/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

THOMAS BUTLER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CSP CENTRAL TOWER STAFF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01532-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

THE COURT'S ORDER 

(Doc. 3)

30-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Thomas Butler, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 19, 2015, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to 

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

enclosed the proper form for Plaintiff's use. (Doc. 3.) 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, 

Case 1:15-cv-01532-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 12/15/15 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

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, within 30 days the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why 

the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01532-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 12/15/15 Page 2 of 2