Brown v. Zymey Industries 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 9/16/2022. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JEREMY JAMES BROWN,

10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

12

Case No. 1:22-cv-00712-AWI-SKO
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL
(Doc. 5)

13

ZYMEY INDUSTRIES, et al.,

14

Defendants.

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

15
16

_____________________________________/

17
18

Plaintiff Jeremy James Brown is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action.

19 Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 14, 2022. (Doc. 1). On August 2, 2022, the Court issued an
20 order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any cognizable claims and granting leave for
21 Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 5.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed
22 an amended complaint or requested an extension of time in which to do so.
23

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

24 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel
25 or 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.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.
27 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court
28 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los

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

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within thirty (30) days of the date

8 of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be dismissed
9 for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute his case.
10 Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint or a notice of
11 voluntary dismissal. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to take action within
12 thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district
13 court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety.
14

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

15 listed on the docket for this matter.
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated:
19

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

September 16, 2022

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2