Daniel Keith Wilson v. M. De Arton, et al.

Opinion

DANIEL KEITH WILSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-2984-DC-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE M. DE ARTON, et al., Defendants. On December 19, 2025, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 7. I ordered plaintiff to file, within thirty days, either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. Id. To date, plaintiff has not complied with that order. The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see 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 . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). ] I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute another failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action bedismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within fourteen days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within fourteen days, an amended complaint. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for expedited review of this case. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this case should be expedited. Indeed, plaintiff has yet to state a claim against the named defendants. Accordingly, the motion is denied. Plaintiff has also filed motions that ask the court to direct service for some of the defendants and to intervene in separate state court cases. ECF Nos. 11 & 12. The court will not direct service until plaintiff has filed a complaint that adequately alleges a claim against a proper defendant. Plaintiff is also notified that this court lacks the authority to intervene in ongoing cases that were filed in a different forum. For these reasons, plaintiff's motions, ECF Nos. 11 & 12, are denied. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than March 6, 2026, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntarily dismiss. 2. Should plaintiff wish to proceed with this action, plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint by no later than March 6, 2026. 3. Plaintiff’s motions, ECF Nos. 9, 11, & 12, are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ February 23, 2026 Q_——_ JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE