(PC) Ponce v. Ramadan ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PABLO JESUS PONCE, 1:23-cv-01193-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR A FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 14 RAMADAN, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 20 On November 13, 2023, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff was 21 afforded 21 days within which to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified 22 in the order, or, alternatively, to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 6-7.) 23 On November 21, 2023, the United States Postal Service returned the order to the Court 24 marked “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Refused-SVSP.” That same date, the Clerk of the 25 Court updated Plaintiff’s address to Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, California, and re- 26 served the screening order by mail. (See Docket Entry 10.) Although more than 21 days have 27 passed, Plaintiff has failed to file either a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary 28 1 dismissal. 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that the 4 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 5 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 6 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 7 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 8 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 9 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 10 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 11 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 12 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 13 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 14 Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s orders. On November 13, 2023, 15 Plaintiff was directed to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within 16 21 days. (Doc. 7.) One week later, the screening order was returned by the United States Postal 17 Service marked “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Refused-SVSP.” The Clerk of the Court 18 updated Plaintiff’s address to Salinas Valley State Prison and re-served the First Screening Order 19 on November 21, 2023. Therefore, a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal 20 was to be filed no later than December 12, 2023 (11/21/23 + 21 days = 12/12/23). 21 More than 30 days have elapsed and Plaintiff has failed to file either a first amended 22 complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. As a result, Plaintiff’s action is subject to dismissal 23 for failure to obey a court order. 24 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 25 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 26 days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to 27 comply with the Court’s screening order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a 28 first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal of this case. 1 Failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be 2 dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to 3 prosecute. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: December 21, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28