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

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 23, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02984
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL KEITH WILSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-2984-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 M. DE ARTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 19, 2025, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to 18 state a claim. ECF No. 7. I ordered plaintiff to file, within thirty days, either an amended 19 complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. Id. To date, plaintiff has not complied 20 with that order. 21 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 22 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 23 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 24 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 25 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss 26 an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure 27 to comply with local rules. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 28 (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 2 || failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute 3 || another failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action 4 || bedismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within fourteen days why this case 5 || should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to 6 || state a claim. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within fourteen 7 || days, an amended complaint. 8 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for expedited review of this case. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff 9 || has not demonstrated that this case should be expedited. Indeed, plaintiff has yet to state a claim 10 || against the named defendants. Accordingly, the motion is denied. 11 Plaintiff has also filed motions that ask the court to direct service for some of the 12 || defendants and to intervene in separate state court cases. ECF Nos. 11 & 12. The court will not 13 | direct service until plaintiff has filed a complaint that adequately alleges a claim against a proper 14 | defendant. Plaintiff is also notified that this court lacks the authority to intervene in ongoing 15 || cases that were filed in a different forum. For these reasons, plaintiff's motions, ECF Nos. 11 & 16 | 12, are denied. 17 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than March 6, 2026, why this action should not 19 || be dismissed for failure to file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntarily dismiss. 20 2. Should plaintiff wish to proceed with this action, plaintiff shall file a first amended 21 || complaint by no later than March 6, 2026. 22 3. Plaintiff’s motions, ECF Nos. 9, 11, & 12, are DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ February 23, 2026 Q_——_ 26 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE