Morris v. North of the River Community Health Center

Filing 5

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Should Not Be Denied for Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/21/2017. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD MORRIS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
NORTH OF THE RIVER COMMUNITY
HEALTH CENTER,

15
Defendant.
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-0100-DAD- JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE REQUEST
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD
NOT BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

Edward Morris initiated this action by filing a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma

18

pauperis on January 23, 2017. (Docs. 1, 2) The Court found the information provided in the

19

application to proceed without the payment of a filing fee was insufficient to determine whether

20

Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 3 at 1) Therefore, Plaintiff was

21

ordered “to file, within fourteen days …, an application that includes information on how Plaintiff is

22

supporting himself, or his dependence on another.” (Id. at 2) Although more than fourteen days have

23

passed, Plaintiff failed to file an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis.

24

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

25

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

26

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

27

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

28

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
1

1

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may impose sanctions, including dismissal, based on a party’s failure to

2

prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g.

3

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (sanctions for failure to comply with an

4

order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (sanctions for failure to

5

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for

6

failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Indeed, in the order directing Plaintiff to file an

7

amended application, he was “warned that failure to comply with this order may result in denial of his

8

application to proceed in forma pauperis.” (Doc. 3 at 2)

9

Accordingly, within 14 days, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing his application to proceed

10

in forma pauperis should not be denied. Alternatively, within 14 days, he may file the amended

11

motion previously ordered by the Court.

12
13

Plaintiff is advised that his failure to comply with this order will result in a
recommendation that his request to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 21, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2