Jon of the Family Knutson v. California Department of Human Services et al

Filing 3

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/19/2017. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JON OF THE FAMILY KNUTSON,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES, et al.
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01209 -AWI-JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff alleges the California Department of Human Services, Kern County Division of Child

18

Support Customer Services, Jonathan Shugart, and Ralph McKnight are liable for due process

19

violations related to child support orders. (See Doc. 1) On September 12, 2017, the Court determined

20

Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support a claim for a violation of due process, and dismissed

21

the complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 2 at 6) The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an

22

amended complaint. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not done so or otherwise responded to the Court’s

23

order.

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 dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

2

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

3

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

4

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

5

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

6

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of

8

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s

9

order and failure to prosecute, or in the alternative, to file an amended complaint.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 19, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2