(PS) Johnson v. Vigen ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TODD LADON JOHNSON, No. 2:19-cv-00769-KJM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LAUREN VIGEN, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 15 Defendant. 16 17 On July 3, 2019, plaintiff Todd Ladon Johnson, who proceeds pro se, was granted leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 9.) Simultaneously, the court dismissed plaintiff’s 19 complaint and granted him leave to amend. (Id.) The court ordered that within 28 days, or by 20 July 31, 2019, “plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint in accordance with this order. 21 Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action in federal court, plaintiff shall file 22 a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.” (Id. at 4.) The court also warned 23 plaintiff that “[f]ailure to file either a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal 24 without prejudice by the required deadline may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice 25 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” (Id.) The deadline having passed, plaintiff 26 has failed to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 27 “Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” 28 King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (overruled on other grounds). A district court 1 may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to Federal 2 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case, or fails to 3 comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules. 4 See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua 5 sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. 6 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action 7 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 8 or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 9 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground 10 for dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal 11 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with 12 any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 13 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and 14 may impose sanctions including dismissal or default). 15 This court’s Local Rules are in accord. Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that 16 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 17 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 18 within the inherent power of the Court.” Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, 19 in part: 20 Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 21 Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria 22 persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these 23 Rules. 24 E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a). 25 The court has considered recommending dismissal of this action, based upon plaintiff’s 26 failure to follow the court’s July 3, 2019 order. However, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, and 27 the court’s strong desire to have this matter resolved on the merits, the court affords plaintiff 28 another opportunity to comply with the court’s prior order. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Within 14 days of this order plaintiff shall (a) show cause in writing why this action 3 should not be dismissed and (b) file a first amended complaint in accordance with the 4 court’s July 3, 2019 order. (ECF No. 9.) 5 2. Plaintiffs failure to file the required response shall constitute an additional ground for, 6 and plaintiff's consent to, a recommendation that plaintiffs case be involuntarily 7 dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local 8 Rules 110 and 183(a). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: August 13, 2019 Aectl Aharon 12 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 johnson.769.osc 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28