Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01288/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01288-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL DEVLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-1288 TLN KJN PS

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, filed his complaint on 

June 27, 2013.1 (ECF Nos. 1-2.) The undersigned previously granted plaintiff’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B), and gave plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading within 45 days. (ECF No. 3.) 

It has been more than 45 days since the deadline for plaintiff to file an amended pleading 

pursuant to the undersigned’s order of July 26, 2013. (ECF No. 3.) To date, plaintiff has not 

filed an amended complaint.

The court is inclined to recommend, on its own motion, the dismissal of plaintiff’s action 

with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute, failure

to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and failure to comply with this court’s order

 

1

 This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 

302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Case 2:13-cv-01288-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/10/13 Page 1 of 3
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

of July 26, 2013, which is incorporated in full herein (ECF No. 3). Eastern District Local Rule 

110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order 

of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by 

statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 

183(a) provides, in part:

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney 

is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 

Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on 

“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria 

persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal 

. . . or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). Case law is in accord that a district court 

may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case with prejudice 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her 

case or fails to comply with the court’s orders. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 

(1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(stating that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua 

sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the 

court’s orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with 

any order of the court.”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City 

of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent 

power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal), cert. denied, 479 

U.S. 829 (1986).

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, no later than November 30, 2013, why this 

case should not be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to follow the 

court’s order of July 26, 2013 (ECF No. 3).

Case 2:13-cv-01288-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/10/13 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. On or before November 30, 2013, plaintiff shall also file an amended complaint 

that addresses the issues raised in the court’s screening order entered on July 26, 2013 (ECF No. 

3), and which fully complies with all aspects of that order.

3. Plaintiff’s failure to file the required writing and amended complaint shall 

constitute an additional ground for, and plaintiff’s consent to, the imposition of appropriate 

sanctions, including a recommendation that plaintiff’s case be involuntarily dismissed with 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 110 and 183(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 9, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-01288-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/10/13 Page 3 of 3