Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01435/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01435-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 DOYLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOAH MARSHAL, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:19-cv-01435-NONE-SKO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 

(Doc. 4)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 

On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Defendants. (Doc. 

1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) On November 21, 2019, 

the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file either a first amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, a habeas corpus petition, or a notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 days of the date of 

service of the order. (Doc. 4.) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the November 21, 2019 

order.

1

 

The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 

corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

1 The Clerk mailed the November 21, 2019 order to Plaintiff, but the order was returned as undeliverable on December 

4, 2019. (See Docket.) On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, and the Clerk updated his 

address on the docket to “AZ-7224, North Kern State Prison (5004), P.O. Box 5004, Delano, CA 93216-9022.” (See 

Doc. 5.) On January 13, 2020, the Clerk re-served Plaintiff with the November 21, 2019 order at his new address, (see 

Docket), and the deadline to comply with the order has now passed.

 

Case 1:19-cv-01435-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 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

“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 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 twenty-one (21) days of the 

date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 

with the Court’s November 21, 2019 Order, (Doc. 4), within the specified period of time. The 

Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if Plaintiff fails to file this statement within twenty-one

(21) days of the date of service of this Order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district 

court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01435-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 2