Jones et al v. Tulare County et al
Order to Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed against new Defendants listed in the Third Amended Complaint for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/15/2017. Show Cause Response due by 10/18/2017. (Rosales, O)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TULARE COUNTY, et al.
Case No. 1:15-cv-01779-EPG
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
AGAINST NEW DEFENDANTS LISTED IN
THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT'S ORDER
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff William Fabricius proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
filed a Third Amended Complaint (“3AC”). (ECF No. 75). On July 31, 2017, the Court issued an
order directing Plaintiff to complete and submit within 30 days service documents for any
defendants listed in his 3AC who were not previously served with process in this action. (ECF
No. 76.) More than 45 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, 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 why this action should not be
dismissed as against any new defendants listed in his 3AC 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 as against the new defendants and explaining
his failure to submit service documents by the required date. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit
the required documents. Any such response shall be filed no later than thirty (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 as against the new defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 15, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?