Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00443/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00443-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Citibank USA
Defendant
Manuel Alcala Farias
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL ALCALA FARIAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITIBANK USA, )

 )

Defendant. )

)

)

)

No.: 1:07-cv-0443 AWI TAG

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE

TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 9)

ORDER SETTING ORDER TO SHOW

SHOW CAUSE HEARING AND ORDER

TO APPEAR IN PERSON AT ORDER TO 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

On March 21, 2007, Plaintiff Manuel Alcala Farias (“Plaintiff”), a non-prisoner proceeding

pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). On March 29, 2007,

the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and ordered him to file an amended

complaint on or before May 1, 2007. (Doc. 9). The Court advised Plaintiff that failure to timely 

file the amended complaint would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id.).

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. (See docket sheet). 

This Court’s Local Rule 11-110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply

with these Local Rules or 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.” District courts have

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Authority of City 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 obey a court order or local rules, especially when the court has given the

party “abundant opportunity and incentive” to comply with the order. See Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

Case 1:07-cv-00443-AWI-TAG Document 13 Filed 05/08/07 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

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal

without prejudice for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court

apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal

for failure to comply with court order); Thompson v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles,

782 F.2d at 832 (dismissal for failure to prepare for pretrial conference despite grants of extensions

of time); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In the instant case, Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s March 29, 2007, order when

he did not file an amended complaint on or before May 1, 2007. The lack of an amended complaint

also constitutes a failure to prosecute, as there presently is no complaint pending in this case.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff Manuel Alcala Farias is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, on or before

May 21, 2007, why sanctions, including dismissal of this action, should not be imposed for failure to

comply with the Court’s March 29, 2007 (Doc. 9), order and for failure to prosecute;

2. It is FURTHER ORDERED that an Order to Show Cause Hearing is set for Friday, May

25, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. before United States Magistrate Judge Theresa A. Goldner in the United

States District Court Courtroom at 1300 18th Street, Suite A, Bakersfield, California, and that

Plaintiff Manuel Alcala Farias SHALL PERSONALLY APPEAR at the Order to Show Cause

Hearing. and explain why sanctions should not be imposed, and this action should not be dismissed,

pursuant to Local Rule 11-110, for failure to comply with the Court’s order (Doc. 9) and for failure

to prosecute this action. 

PLAINTIFF IS WARNED THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER

WILL RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00443-AWI-TAG Document 13 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 2