Aaron Vrh v. J. Zamora, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01385
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON VRH, Case No.: 1:25-cv-01385-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST SCREENING 14 J. ZAMORA, et al., ORDER

15 Defendants. 14-DAY RESPONSE DEADLINE

18 Plaintiff Aaron Vrh is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 section 1983. 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Following removal from the Kings County Superior Court, on January 27, 2026, this 22 Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 10.) The Court found Plaintiff’s operative second 23 amended failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Id. at 4-16.) As a result, 24 Plaintiff was ordered to file a third amended complaint, or, alternatively, to file a notice of 25 voluntary dismissal, within 21 days. (Id. at 16-17.) 26 Despite the passage of more than 21 days, plus time for mailing, Plaintiff has failed to 27 respond to the Court’s screening order in any way. 1 II. DISCUSSION 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 these Rules or with any order of the Court may 4 be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 5 or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power 6 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 7 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 8 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 9 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 10 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. 11 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 12 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 13 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 14 In the screening order, the Court found Plaintiff’s operative complaint fails to state a 15 cognizable claim against any named defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff was directed to file a third 16 amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified in the screening order, or to file a notice of 17 voluntary dismissal, within 21 days. More than 21 days, plus time for mailing, have passed, yet 18 Plaintiff has failed to take any action. 19 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 days of 21 the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 22 with the Court’s screening order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file either a 23 third amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Any failure by Plaintiff to comply with this Order to Show Cause will result in a 2 | recommendation that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court 3 | orders and failure to prosecute. 4 | ITISSO ORDERED. >| Dated: _ February 24, 2026 | wnrD Pr 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28