Annis v. Hamilton et al

Filing 6

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/6/2022. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

AUDREY ANN ANNIS,

10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

12

Case No. 1:22-cv-00051-DAD-SKO
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL
(Doc. 5)

13

RACHEL HAMILTON, et al.,

14

Defendants.

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

15
16

_____________________________________/

17
18

On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the complaint

19 in this action. (Docs. 1, 2.)
20

On March 28, 2022, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to

21 state any cognizable claims and granting leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
22 thirty days. (Doc. 5.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or requested an
23 extension of time in which to do so.
24

The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California,

25 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel
26 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the
27 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.
28 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court

1 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los
2 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based
3 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with
4 local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for
5 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,
6 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson
7 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply
8 with local rules).
9

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days of the

10 date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be
11 dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute his
12 case. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint or a
13 notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to take action
14 within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the Court will recommend to the
15 presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety.
16

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed

17 on the docket for this matter.
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated:
21

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

May 6, 2022

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2