Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00034/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00034-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE L. REVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00034-DAD-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CASE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER

21-DAY DEADLINE

On February 19, 2020, the Court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to file a 

second amended complaint within 21 days. (Doc. 14.) Although more than the allowed time has 

passed, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or 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 a

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:19-cv-00034-ADA-SKO Document 15 Filed 03/25/20 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

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 in writing, within 21 days of the date 

of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the 

Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a second amended 

complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 14) or a notice of 

voluntary dismissal of this entire case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00034-ADA-SKO Document 15 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 2