Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757-7/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

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

Plaintiff Luis V. Rodrigues (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to proceed before 

the Magistrate Judge on May 16, 2012. (Doc. 5). On April 15, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 

notify the Court whether he wished to proceed on his cognizable claims or to file a first amended 

complaint. (Doc. 17). Despite Plaintiff’s multiple extensions of time to file his first amended 

complaint, (Doc. 20, 23), Plaintiff has failed to amend his complaint or otherwise respond to the 

Court’s order. 

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 

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW 

BOARD, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00757 – JLT (PC)

FINAL ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER 

(Doc. 17).

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 07/31/13 Page 1 of 2
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

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).

Plaintiff is advised that this will be the Court’s FINAL order for Plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint or notify the Court whether he wishes to proceed on his cognizable claims. Failure to 

comply with this Order will result in an immediate dismissal of this matter. Plaintiff is advised that 

the Court will not grant any further extensions of time to comply with the Court’s order. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint or notify the Court whether 

he wishes to proceed on his cognizable claims within 14 days of service of this order. His failure to 

comply will result in an order dismissing this without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 07/31/13 Page 2 of 2