(PC) Sloan v. Cisneros ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNNY LEE SLOAN, JR., Case No.: 1:23-cv-00699-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING 13 v. WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY 14 T. CISNEROS, et al., COURT ORDERS 15 Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 Plaintiff Johnny Lee Sloan Jr. is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action. 20 On June 29, 2023, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 10.) Specifically, the 21 Court found Plaintiff’s complaint violated Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 22 4-6.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified 23 in the screening order. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a first amended complaint or a 24 notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 days of the date of service of the order. (Id. at 12.) 25 More than 21 days have passed,and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s First 26 Screening Order in any way. 27 // 1 DISCUSSION AND ORDER 2 The Local Rules,1 corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 3 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 4 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 5 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 6 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 7 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 8 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 9 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 10 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 11 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 12 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 13 Here, Plaintiff has failed to obey the Court’s June 29, 2023 screening order requiring him 14 to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. Nor has Plaintiff sought an 15 extension of time within which to do so. 16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of 17 the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 18 with the Court’s order of June 29, 2023. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file 19 either a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 1 In this Court’s May 8, 2023 order, Plaintiff was advised “the parties must comply with this Order, the 26 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”) …. Failure to so comply with be grounds for 27 imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case.” (See Doc. 4 at 1 [First Informational Order In Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case].) The same order states “all Court deadlines are strictly enforced. Requests for extensions of time must be filed before the deadline expires and must state 1 WARNING: Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause (OSC) will result in a 2 | recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to 3 | obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: _ July 26, 2023 | nnd Rr 6 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