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

Opinion

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