Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01381/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01381-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kings County Probation
Defendant
Kings County Sheriff
Defendant
Jose Reymundo Leal
Plaintiff
Mazuka
Defendant

Document Text:

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, Jose Reymundo Leal, is a prisoner in the custody of Wasco State Prison. On 

October 2, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against Defendants Kings County Sheriff, Kings County Probation, and a Kings County probation 

officer named “Mazuka.” (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which was granted on October 7, 2019. (Docs. 2, 3.) 

On November 21, 2019, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed 

to state any cognizable claims and granted Plaintiff twenty-one days leave to file an amended 

complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. 5.) Although more than 

the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond 

to the Court’s screening 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, 

JOSE REYMUNDO LEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

KINGS COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01381-NONE-SKO 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S 

ORDER AND FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. 5)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:19-cv-01381-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 02/07/20 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

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 twenty-one (21) days of the 

date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s November 21, 2019 screening order,

by not filing an amended complaint within the specified period of time and for failure to state 

a cognizable claim. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an amended 

complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails 

to take action within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the Court will 

recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 

on the docket for this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01381-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2 of 2