Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01525/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01525-7/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

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

SAMUEL ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KITT, et al.,

Defendants.

1:14-cv-01525-DAD-JLT (PC) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Docs. 30, 32, 34)

30-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 30) and thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

more time to file his opposition. (Doc. 31.) The Court granted the extension of time and issued 

the second informational order informing Plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion to 

dismiss and of duty to file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. (Docs. 32, 34.) 

However, Plaintiff has filed neither.

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 1:14-cv-01525-DAD-JLT Document 35 Filed 03/15/16 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, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing why the 

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

prosecute this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01525-DAD-JLT Document 35 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 2