Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00199/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00199-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Evangelista
Petitioner
On Habeas Corpus
Respondent

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

Upon preliminary screening of this action, the Court determined that it appeared the petition 

failed to state a cognizable federal habeas claim, that it may be unexhausted and untimely, and that 

Petitioner had failed to name a proper Respondent such to confer habeas jurisdiction. Thus, on 

February 22, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner to amend his petition within thirty days. (Doc. 4). 

More than sixty days has passed, yet Petitioner has failed to do so or have any other contact with the 

Court.

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 

with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions...within the inherent power of the Court.” District Courts have the 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 Auth., 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, failure to 

JOSE EVANGELISTA,

 Petitioner,

v.

ON HABEAS CORPUS,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00199-JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY A COURT ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING THAT A RESPONSE BE 

FILED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Case 1:16-cv-00199-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 05/04/16 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

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-

54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 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 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); 

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

failure to comply with local rules). 

 ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS: 

1. Within 30 days, Petitioner SHALL show cause in writing why the petition should not 

be dismissed due to his failure to obey the Court’s order. Petitioner may satisfy the 

Court’s Order to Show Cause by filing an amended petition that complies with the 

Court’s requirements specified in the February 22, 2016 order to amend.

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a 

Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00199-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2