1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GS L. LOVE El, et al., No. 2:19-cv-01395-KJM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 TROY NUNLEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 7, 2019, plaintiff GS L. Love El,1 who is proceeding without counsel in this 18 action, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 9.) Simultaneously, the court 19 dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and granted him leave to amend. (Id.) The court ordered that 20 within 28 days, or by November 4, 2019, “plaintiff shall file either (a) a first amended complaint 21 in accordance with this order, or (b) a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without 22 prejudice.” (Id. at 4.) The court also warned plaintiff that “[f]ailure to file either a first amended 23 complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice by the required deadline may result 24 in dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” (Id. 25 1 The “Mororish Science Temple of America” is also listed as a plaintiff in this action, but it is 26 unclear how the Temple has standing in this action for false arrest. Additionally, the Temple is 27 not represented by counsel, as required by federal law. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993). Accordingly, the court only refers to 28 plaintiff, GS L. Love El. 1 at 5.) The deadline having passed, plaintiff has failed to file a first amended complaint or a notice 2 of voluntary dismissal. 3 “Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King 4 v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (overruled on other grounds). A district court may 5 impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case, or fails to comply 7 with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules. See 8 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte 9 to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest 10 Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply 12 with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 13 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for 14 dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule 15 of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 16 order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 17 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and 18 may impose sanctions including dismissal or default). 19 This court’s Local Rules are in accord. Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that 20 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 21 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 22 within the inherent power of the Court.” Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, 23 in part: 24 Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 25 Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria 26 persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these 27 Rules. 28 E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a). 1 The court has considered recommending dismissal of this action based upon plaintiff’s 2 | failure to follow the court’s October 7, 2019 order. However, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, 3 | and the court’s strong desire to have this matter resolved on the merits, the court affords plaintiff 4 | another opportunity to comply with the court’s prior order. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Within 14 days of this order plaintiff shall (a) show cause in writing why this action 7 should not be dismissed and (b) file a first amended complaint in accordance with the 8 court’s October 7, 2019 order. (ECF No. 9.) 9 2. Plaintiffs failure to file the required response shall constitute an additional ground for, 10 and plaintiff's consent to, a recommendation that plaintiffs case be involuntarily 11 dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local 12 Rules 110 and 183(a). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: November 21, 2019 Aectl Aharon 16 KENDALL J. NE 1395 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28