Zavala v. Valdes

Filing 8

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not be Recommended for Dismissal, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/6/2025. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure comply with the Court's order and for failure to prosecute his case. Alternatively, within that same period, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, a statement indicating he stands on his original complaint, or a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Deputy Clerk OFR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ANTONIO ZAVALA,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL

v.

12
13
14

Case No. 1:24-cv-01360-JLT-SKO

ROBERT VALDES,
Defendant.

(Doc. 4)
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

_____________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiff Antonio Zavala is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. (Docs.

17 1, 3.) Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 6, 2024.
18

On November 19, 2024, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to

19 state any cognizable claims and granting leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
20 thirty days or to notify the Court that he wishes to stand on his complaint. (Doc. 4.) The screening
21 order was served on Plaintiff by mail on November 27, 2024. (See Docket.) To date, Plaintiff has
22 not filed an amended complaint, notified the Court of his intention to stand on his complaint, or
23 requested an 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 based on a party’s failure
3 to prosecute an action, to obey a court order, or to 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 an order
5 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.
6 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
7 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
8

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

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

January 6, 2025

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2