Conde v. Department of the Treasury ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHRISTOPHER CONDE, Case No. 1:21-cv-01072-DAD-SKO 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 11 v. A FOC RT I PO LN A S INH TO IU FL F’D S N FO AIT L B UE R ED I TS OM ISSED 12 COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 13 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, et al., (Doc. 3) 14 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 15 _____________________________________/ 16 17 Plaintiff Christopher Conde, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on July 9, 2021, 18 along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.) On July 14, 2021, the 19 undersigned issued an order finding that Plaintiff failed to provide a certified copy of his trust 20 account statement and to comply with 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1), providing him another IFP application 21 form, and directing him to file an amended IFP application that corrects the identified deficiencies 22 within thirty days. (Doc. 3.) More than thirty days have lapsed without Plaintiff having filed an 23 amended IFP application. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of 25 a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 26 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District 27 courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may 28 impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 1 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s 2 failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 3 See, 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 twenty-one (21) days of the date 8 of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s 9 order and for his failure to prosecute this action. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may 10 either file an amended IFP application, or pay the $402 filing fee for this action. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: August 26, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28