Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01120/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01120-0/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

RYAN BIGOSKI ODOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. TAYLOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01120-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER

21-DAY DEADLINE

On June 15, 2021, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff to file a second

amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 days. (Doc. 11.) Although more 

than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or a notice of 

dismissal or to otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

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

“[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, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or 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 a

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 12 Filed 07/20/21 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

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (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, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of the 

date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with 

the Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a second amended 

complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 11) or a notice of 

voluntary dismissal of this case. Failure to comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and to obey court 

orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 12 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 2