(PC) Thomas v. Haros ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRENTICE RAY THOMAS, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00452 SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING 13 v. WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY 14 PAUL HAROS, et al., COURT ORDER TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 15 Defendants. PAUPERIS OR TO PAY FILING FEE 16 21-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff Prentice Ray Thomas is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on March 24, 2023. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff 22 also submitted an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner; however, the 23 application was not signed. (Doc. 2.) 24 On April 28, 2023, the Court issued its Order to Submit Application to Proceed In Forma 25 Pauperis (IFP) or Pay Filing Fee Within 45 Days. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff was served that same date at 26 Wasco State Prison, the address reflected on his complaint filed four days earlier. More than 45 27 days have passed, and Plaintiff has neither filed a completed and signed IFP application, nor paid 1 II. DISCUSSION AND ORDER 2 The Local Rules, 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, more than 45 days have elapsed following the Court’s order of March 28, 2023, 14 directing Plaintiff to submit a completed and signed IFP application or to pay the filing fee in full. 15 To date, Plaintiff has neither submitted a completed and signed IFP application, nor paid the 16 required filing fee. 17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of 18 the date of service of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to file an 19 IFP application or to pay the required filing fee. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff 20 may either file a completed and signed IFP application or pay the $402 filing fee. 21 Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause (OSC) will result in a 22 recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 23 obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: May 18, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27