Borders, et al. v. City of Tulare, et al.
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why The Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Plaintiff's Failure To Comply With The Court's Order. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/5/2017. (Timken, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-1818-DAD-SKO
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S
CITY OF TULARE; OFFICER ERIC
TREVINO; OFFICER JULIA FRANCO;
TULARE POLICE CHIEF JERRY
BRECKERIDGE; CAPTAIN BROOKSHER;
LT. LORI CANABA VILLASENOR;
TULARE CITY MANAGER DON
BOORMAN; BRAZIL LITIGATION; and
On December 2, 2016, Plaintiff Jack Borders, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against
City of Tulare, Officer Eric Trevino, Officer Julia Franco, Tulare Police Chief Jerry Breckeridge,
Captain Brooksher, Lt. Lori Canaba Villasenor, Tulare City Manager Don Boorman, “Brazil
Litigation,” and Marian Correia (collectively “Defendants”).1 Plaintiff also filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 2.) On March 23, 2017, the undersigned dismissed
Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days leave to file an amended complaint curing the
pleading deficiencies identified in the Order. (Doc. 3.) More than thirty days have lapsed without
Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint. (See id. and Docket.)
The complaint’s caption also names Rachel Whipple as a purported plaintiff, but the complaint does not appear to
allege any causes of action on her behalf. (See Doc. 1.)
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 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 Authority 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 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, within twenty-one (21) days of the
date of service of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure comply
with the Court’s March 23, 2017 Order by not filing an amended complaint within the
specified period of time. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to file this
statement within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this Order, the Court will
recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed
on the docket for this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 5, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
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?