Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01112/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01112-4/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

JASON BERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. GUERRA, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01112-DAD-EPG (PC) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT'S ORDER 

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jason Berg is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 10, 2017, the Court issued an order 

finding that service of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was appropriate and instructed 

Plaintiff to complete and submit service documents within 30 days. (ECF No. 24.) More than 

45 days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to submit the required documents or otherwise 

respond to the Court's Order.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

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 Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 

Case 1:14-cv-01112-DAD-EPG Document 25 Filed 03/06/17 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

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).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why the action should not be 

dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s order. Plaintiff is ordered to file a written 

response to this Order to Show Cause indicating whether he intends to pursue this action and to 

explain his failure to submit service documents by the required date. Alternatively, Plaintiff may 

submit the required documents. Any such response shall be filed no later than 30 days after the 

date of this Order. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond to this order as set forth 

above may result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01112-DAD-EPG Document 25 Filed 03/06/17 Page 2 of 2