Nelson v. Foster Poultry Farms ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL NELSON, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-0222 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ) ORDER 14 FOSTER , et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Previously, the parties stipulated to allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint to dismiss the 18 seventh and eighth causes of action with prejudice. (See Doc. 28.) On December 12, 2022, the Court 19 approved the terms of the parties’ stipulation and ordered Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint 20 within three days of the date of service of the order. (Doc. 29.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed his 21 amended complaint. 22 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 23 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 24 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 25 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 26 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 27 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 28 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 1 || Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 2 || requiring filing of an amended complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir 3 || 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 142 4 || (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within seven days of the date of service 6 || of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for the failure comply with the Court’s order an 7 || failure to prosecute, or in the alternative, to file the First Amended Complaint as previously ordered. 8 9 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 9, 2023 ( LAW ph L. wan 11 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28