(PC) Rodriguez v. Cate et al

Filing 28

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Obey Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/14/2022. Show Cause Response or $402 filing fee due within 21 days. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERICK EDDIE RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. CATE, et al.,

15

Case No.: 1:21-cv-00898-DAD-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER
21-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Erick Eddie Rodriguez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

17
18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On August 23, 2021, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to Deny

20

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 21.) Following re-service by mail to a

21

temporary address,1 Plaintiff filed objections on October 19, 2021. (Doc. 22.) On October 27,

22

2021, District Judge Dale A. Drozd adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full. (Doc.

23

23.) Specifically, Judge Drozd denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered

24

that Plaintiff pay the $402 filing fee within 90 days. (Id. at 2.) More than 90 days have passed,

25

and Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee.

26

//

27
1

28

On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document indicating a temporary change of address to the Los Angeles County
Jail. (Doc. 18.) On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff advised he had been transferred back to High Desert State Prison in
Susanville, California. (Doc. 25.)

1

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide,

2

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for

3

the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”

4

Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising

5

that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth.,

6

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a

7

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g.,

8

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

9

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir.

10

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

11

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

12

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21

13

days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to

14

comply with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may pay the $402

15

filing fee in full. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

16

action be dismissed for failure to obey court orders.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

March 14, 2022

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2