- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DECHERI HAFER, Case No.: 1:20-cv-01426-NONE-JLT 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 14 UNKNOWN, FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 13, 2020, the Court issued an order directing the plaintiff to file a motion to proceed 18 in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within 21 days of service of that order. (Doc. 6.) More than 21 19 days have passed, and the plaintiff has not filed an IFP application or paid the filing fee. 20 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of 21 counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 22 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District 23 courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose 24 sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 25 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 26 action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 27 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); 28 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 1 with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 2 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than 4 November 23, 2020, why this action should not be dismissed. Alternatively, within that same time, 5 Plaintiff may submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed, or he may pay 6 the filing fee for this action. 7 The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the Court 8 dismiss the action. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: November 11, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 1:20-cv-01426
Filed Date: 11/12/2020
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/19/2024