Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00899/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00899-1/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

ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00899-DAD-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. 1, 8)

30-DAY DEADLINE

On September 26, 2016, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff failed to state any 

cognizable claims, dismissing the Complaint, and granting leave for Plaintiff to file a first 

amended complaint within 30 days. (Doc. 8.) More than 30 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 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00899-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 11/10/16 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

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 30 days of the date of service 

of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for both his failure to state a claim and to 

comply with the Court’s order; alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a notice of 

voluntary dismissal.

1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff may have decided to no longer pursue this action as he has been transferred to Mule Creek State Prison --

which is the relief he sought. (See Doc. 6.)

Case 1:16-cv-00899-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 2