Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01319-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chad Randall Bergman
Plaintiff
County of Kern
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Chad Bergman initiated this action against the County of Kern by filing a complaint on August 

28, 2015, alleging employees of the County violated his civil rights by executing an unlawful arrest, 

using excessive force in the course of the arrest and failing to provide medical care in violation of the 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. (Doc. 1) The Court granted the County’s 

motion to dismiss, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of 

service. (Doc. 16 at 12) To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with 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 

CHAD RANDALL BERGMAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01319 - TLN - JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR HIS FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

ORDER

Case 1:15-cv-01319-TLN-JLT Document 17 Filed 12/09/15 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

(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 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure comply with 

the Court’s order or, in the alternative, to file an amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01319-TLN-JLT Document 17 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 2