Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02363/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02363-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keshan Branch
Plaintiff
Vacaville Police Department
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KESHAN BRANCH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VACAVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-2363-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

 On September 10, 2015, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. ECF No. 14. That order dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, 

explained the deficiencies in the complaint and warned plaintiff that failure to file an amended 

complaint would result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not submitted an amended complaint or 

otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-02363-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/14/15 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

 A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or 

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in 

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended 

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule 

regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110, 183(b). 

Dated: October 14, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02363-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 2