Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00789/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00789-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

Kulvinder S. Boparai (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this action for Title VII violations. 

On December 7, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended complaint with leave to amend. 

(Doc. 10). Plaintiff was to file a Third Amended Complaint within twenty-one days of the date of 

service of the order, or no later than December 28, 2012. Id. at 7. However, Plaintiff failed to file a 

Third Amended Complaint. 

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure 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, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 

KULVINDER S. BOPARAI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00789- LJO-JLT 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

ORDER

Case 1:12-cv-00789-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 01/02/13 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

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 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure comply with the 

Court’s order, or in the alternative, to file a Third Amended Complaint in accordance with the Court’s 

order dated December 7, 2012 (Doc. 10).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:12-cv-00789-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 2