Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01815/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01815-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

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

John Frederick Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed pro se in this action initiated on 

November 5, 2012. Plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant by this Court, and pre-filing 

restrictions have been imposed.1 Specifically, on September 10, 2012, the Court ordered: “As a prefiling condition to initiating any new action before the Court, Plaintiff SHALL (1) attach a copy of [the 

vexatious litigant] Order to his Complaint and (2) pay the requisite filing fee.” Wheeler v. United 

States, Case. No. 1:12-cv-00641-LJO-JLT (Doc. 18 at 11). Although Plaintiff now seeks to initiate a 

new action before the Court, he has failed to comply with the Court’s order.

 

1

The Court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources 

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 

(9th Cir. 1993). The Court’s records are sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may 

be taken of the records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise 

Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Colonial Penn Ins. 

Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989).Therefore, judicial notice is taken of the Court’s records in Wheeler v. 

United States, Case No.1:12-cv-00641-LJO-JLT.

JOHN FREDERICK WHEELER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01815 - AWI - JLT 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:12-cv-01815-AWI-JLT Document 4 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 2
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

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure 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, 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 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order, or in 

the alternative, to comply with the pre-filing conditions ordered by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2012 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:12-cv-01815-AWI-JLT Document 4 Filed 11/19/12 Page 2 of 2