(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)

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

.