Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01553/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01553-2/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

RAYMOND JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01553-NONE-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER

21-DAY DEADLINE

On March 19, 2020, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff to file a first

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. 14.) On April 22, 2020, 

the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 15) and provided Plaintiff 30 

additional days to comply with the Court’s screening order. (Doc. 16.) Although more than the 

allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint.

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.,

Case 1:19-cv-01553-DAD-JLT Document 17 Filed 06/09/20 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

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. 

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 21 days of the date of service of this order, the Plaintiff SHALL

show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the 

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

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

dismissal of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01553-DAD-JLT Document 17 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 2