Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01739/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01739-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Plaintiff Archie Weir is proceeding pro se with this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

officers of the Bakersfield Police Department, Trans West Security and three of its employees, and 

Kern Medical Center. (Doc. 1.) Because Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claims, 

the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend on February 27, 2015. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff was 

granted thirty days from the date of service, or until April 1, 2015, to file an amended complaint. To 

date, Plaintiff has failed to file his First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

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 

ARCHIE WEIR,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW ROY, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01739 - --- - JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:14-cv-01739-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/07/15 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

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 fourteen 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, or in the alternative, to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01739-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 2