Vahan Jaladian v. Chokatos et al

Filing 6

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE as to Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With a Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/29/12. Response to Order to Show Cause Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

VAHAN JALADIAN,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:11-cv–02130-BAM PC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER

v.
JOHN CHOKATOS, et al.,

(ECF No. 4)
13

Defendants.
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

14
/
15
16

Plaintiff Vahan Jaladian is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 29, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an

18

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within forty-five days. More than forty-

19

five days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s

20

order.

21

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local

22

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

23

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, the failure of Plaintiff to prosecute

24

this action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation,

25

460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).

26

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service

27

of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure

28

to obey a court order.
1

1
2
3
4

The failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

February 29, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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