Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00458/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00458-3/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

RAYMOND PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAURICE JUNIOUS,

Defendant.

1:14-cv-00458-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

THE COURT'S ORDER

(Docs. 9, 10)

21-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Raymond Perez, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended 

Complaint which was not signed. (Doc. 9.) On June 18, 2014, the Court issued an order striking 

the First Amended Complaint and granting leave for Plaintiff to file a signed first amended 

complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 10.) More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has 

failed to file an amended 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, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

Case 1:14-cv-00458-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 07/30/14 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

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). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service 

of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order 

and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00458-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 07/30/14 Page 2 of 2