Mitchell v. Security Pacific Bank et al

Filing 4

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/11/2016. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HURSEL MITCHELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 1:16-CV-00775-AWI-MJS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER

SECURITY PACIFIC BANK, et. al.,
(Doc. 2)

15

Defendant.

16
17
Plaintiff is a proceeding pro se with a civil complaint in this court.
18
On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No.
19
2.) On June 9, 2016, the Court issued an order requesting Plaintiff supplement his in
20
forma pauperis application with a declaration providing more information regarding his
21
income within ten (10) days of issuance of the order. Over ten days have passed and
22
Plaintiff has not responded.
23

Local Rule 110 provides: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

24
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
25

and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”

26
///
27
///
28
1

1

Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to, within fourteen (14) days of service of this

2

order, SHOW CAUSE why appropriate sanctions should not be imposed for failing to

3

comply with a court order.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 11, 2016

/s/

7

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2