Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01022/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01022-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bochop
Defendant
Marcus Carter
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOCHOP,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01022-EPG (PC) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

THE COURT'S ORDER 

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Marcus Carter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 26, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to 

pay the filing fee for this action or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis within 45 

days. (ECF No. 7.) More than 60 days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to submit the required 

documents or otherwise respond to the Court's Order.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

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 Auth. 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 prosecute an action or failure to 

Case 1:16-cv-01022-EPG Document 9 Filed 10/04/16 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

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 why the action should not be 

dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s order. Plaintiff is ordered to file a written 

response to this Order to Show Cause indicating whether he intends to pursue this action and to 

explain his failure to respond by the required date. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit the 

required documents or fee. Any such response shall be filed no later than 30 days after the date 

of this Order. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond to this order as set forth above 

may result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01022-EPG Document 9 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 2