(PC)Jerry Antivone Castle v. Unknown ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY ANTIVONE CASTLE, Case No. 1:22-cv-00169-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. FOURTEEN-DAY RESPONSE PERIOD 14 UNKOWN DEFENDANT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Jerry Castle, a state prisoner, initiated this action by filing a pro se civil rights 18 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 31, 2022. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff’s complaint was 19 not accompanied by the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (See 20 Docket). Plaintiff’s complaint was transferred from the Central District of California to the 21 Eastern District of California on February 3, 2022. (Doc. No. 4). On February 9, 2022, the Court 22 ordered Plaintiff to either submit a completed IFP application or pay the $402.00 filing fee within 23 twenty-one days of receipt of the order. (Doc. No. 7). The Court enclosed an IFP application and 24 cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the Court’s order would result in this 25 matter’s dismissal. (Id.). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor 26 filed a new application to proceed IFP. 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits courts to involuntarily dismiss an action 28 when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. 1 | P.41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations 2 | omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 3 | (‘[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss 4 | under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110 similarly 5 || permits courts to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with a court order. 6 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 7 Within fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Order, Plaintiff shall comply with the 8 | Court’s previous February 9, 2022, Order. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order or will 9 | result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to 10 | prosecute this action and/or his failure to timely comply with the Court’s February 9, 2022 Order. 11 Dated: __June 3, 2022 Wile. Wh. arch Yack 13 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28