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)

Download PDF
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

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?