Brendan Ngehsi Newanforbi v. State of California, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01460
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRENDAN NGEHSI NEWANFORBI, Case No. 2:25-cv-01460-DC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (ECF No. 4) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Brendan Ngehsi Newanforbi is proceeding in this action pro se.1 On 18 August 25, 2025, the Court issued an order denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s request 19 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and directing Plaintiff to file a renewed IFP 20 application within thirty (30) days form the date of the order. 8/25/2025 Order (ECF No. 21 4). Plaintiff was warned that failure to timely comply with the order may result in a 22 recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id. at 2. The 23 applicable deadline has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a renewed IFP 24 application. See Docket. 25 A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a 26 plaintiff’s case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 | to prosecute his or her case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules 2 | of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 3 | 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to 4 || prosecute”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 5 || 2005) (approving sua sponte dismissals under Rule 41(b)); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 6 | 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a 7 || proper ground for dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), 8 || as amended (May 22, 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the 9 || district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”); 10 | Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) 11 | (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose 12 | sanctions including dismissal or default). This Court’s Local Rules are in accord. See 13 | E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 14 | with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 15 || sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”); E.D. 16 | Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se party’s failure to comply with the Federal 17 || Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s Local Rules, and other applicable law may support, 18 | among other things, dismissal of that party’s action). 19 The Court has considered whether this action should be dismissed at this juncture 20 | due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s August 25, 2025 Order. Nevertheless, 21 | in light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court first attempts lesser sanctions by issuing this 22 | order to show cause. Plaintiff has fourteen (14) days to respond to this order to show 23 || cause and pay the filing fee or file a renewed IFP application. Plaintiff is warned that the 24 | failure to comply with this Court’s order within fourteen (14) days will result in a 25 || recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. 26 | Dated: October 17, 2025 C iy S 27 CHI SOO KIM | ee UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE