(PC) Frederick Rogers v. Sherman

Filing 7

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order; Show Cause Response due within Twenty-One (21) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/7/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FREDERICK ROGERS, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 Case No.: 1:19-cv-01124-SKO (PC) v. SHERMAN, et al., Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CASE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER (Doc. 5) 16 17 21-DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Plaintiff Frederick Rogers is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 21, 2019, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff, 21 within 21 days, to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) or to pay the filing 22 fee for this action. (Doc. 5.) Although more than 21 days have passed, Plaintiff has failed to file 23 an IFP application, pay the filing fee, or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or 25 of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 26 Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court. Local Rule 110. 27 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and, in exercising that power, they 28 1 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los 2 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 3 failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 4 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 5 order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 6 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 7 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local 8 rules). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service 9 10 of this order why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s 11 August 21, 2019 order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an application to 12 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order 13 will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s 14 order. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: October 7, 2019 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 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?