# (PC) Brown v. North Kern State Prison

> District Court, E.D. California · December 7, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10023858

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** December 7, 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/10023858

## Opinion text

1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 KENYON DERRAL BROWN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01396-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
13 v. FAILURE TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
14 NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,
21-DAY DEADLINE
15 Defendants.

16
17 On October 2, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff, within 45 days, to submit an application
18 to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) or pay the $400 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 3.) Although
19 more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has not filed an IFP application, paid the filing
20 fee, or otherwise responded 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, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of the
5 date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed. Alternatively, within that
6 same time, Plaintiff may submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and
7 signed, or he may pay the $400 filing fee for this action. Failure to comply with this order will
8 result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10

Sheila K. Oberto
11 Dated: December 4, 2020 /s/ .
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/10023858. Public record. Not legal advice.