# (PC) Brown v. United States of America

> District Court, E.D. California · June 9, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10019682

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 9, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10019682

## Opinion text

1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 GREGORY BROWN, Case No. 1:19-cv-01755-JLT (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
13 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
S. LAKE, 21-DAY DEADLINE
15
Defendants.
16
17 On May 4, 2020, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff, within 21 days, to
18 file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in its order. (Doc. 9.) Although
19 more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or
20 otherwise respond to the Court’s order.
21 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide,
22 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for
23 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.”
24 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising
25 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth.,
26 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a
27 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g.,
28 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a
1 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir.
2 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
3 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
4 Accordingly, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL show
5 cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the
6 Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint
7 curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 9) or a notice of voluntary
8 dismissal of this case.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10

11 Dated: June 8, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12

13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10019682. Public record. Not legal advice.