(PC) Bowden v. California Department of Corrections ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANE MONROE BOWDEN, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01769-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 13 v. ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et.al., ) [ECF No. 5] 15 ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Shane Monroe Bowden is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On December 23, 2019, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of 21 signature as required by Local Rule 131 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). (ECF No. 5.) 22 Plaintiff was directed to file a complaint, signed under penalty of perjury with an original signature 23 within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order and the time to do so has 24 now expired. 25 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of … a party to comply … with any order of the Court 26 may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 27 within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, a plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and 28 1 || prosecute their action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 2 || Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226-29 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date of 4 || service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to 5 || comply with a court order. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (ee 8 || Dated: _ February 4, 2020 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28