Vargas v. CDCR et al

Filing 5

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the Action Should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/18/17. 21-Day Show Cause Response Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANCISCO JAVIER VARGAS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01412-JLT (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT’S ORDER

CDCR, et al.,
(Doc. 4)

15

Defendants.
21-DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

On October 25, 2017, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to submit an application to
proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within 45 days -- which enclosed the proper form
for Plaintiff’s use. (Doc. 4.) More than 45 days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an
application to proceed in forma pauperis, to pay the filing fee, or to respond to the Court’s Order
in any manner.
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

26
court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of
27
Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,
28
1

1

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to

2

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

3

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

4

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

5

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

6

prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service

7
8

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

9

order.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 18, 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