Edward Harry Constable v. Kathleen Allison, et al.

E.D. California

Edward Harry Constable v. Kathleen Allison, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 12, 2026·No. 1:25-cv-00591·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD HARRY CONSTABLE, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00591-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., PROSECUTE

15 Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE

18 Plaintiff Edward Harry Constable is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on May 20, 2025. (Doc. 1.) 22 On June 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. 8.) On August 1, 2025, 23 a document submitted by Plaintiff was lodged with the Court as a second amended complaint. 24 (Doc. 9.) 25 On August 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed correspondence docketed as a motion to appoint counsel 26 and notice. (Doc. 10.) The Court issued its Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel 27 on August 8, 2025. (Doc. 11.) The Court also advised Plaintiff that the document lodged August 1 be “’complete in itself without reference to the prior’ complaint,” that Plaintiff should use the 2 civil rights complaint form, and that any submitted complaint was subject to screening. (Id. at 5.) 3 On January 14, 2026, the Court issued its First Screening Order based on the operative 4 first amended complaint. (Doc. 13.) Specifically, the Court found that it violated Rule 8 of the 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (id. at 6-7), failed to link any defendant to a constitutional 6 violation (id. at 7), named entities entitled to immunity (id. at 8-9) and asserted improper claims 7 (id. at 10-11). Plaintiff was also provided with legal standards applicable to his potential claims. 8 (Id. at 12-13.) Because Plaintiff’s first amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which 9 relief could be granted, he was given leave to file a second amended complaint within 21 days, 10 curing the deficiencies identified in the screening order. (Id. at 14-15.) 11 More than 21 days have passed, but Plaintiff has failed to file a second amended 12 complaint. 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 15 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 16 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 17 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 18 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 19 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 20 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 21 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 22 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 23 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 24 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 25 Here, Plaintiff has failed to obey the Court’s screening order directing him to file a second 26 amended complaint within 21 days. Nor has Plaintiff sought an extension of time within which to 27 do so. 1 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of 3 the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 4 with the Court’s order of January 14, 2026. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file 5 a second amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified in the First Screening Order. 6 WARNING: Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause (OSC) will result in a 7 recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 8 obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

11 Dated: February 12, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD HARRY CONSTABLE, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00591-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., PROSECUTE

15 Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE

18 Plaintiff Edward Harry Constable is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on May 20, 2025. (Doc. 1.) 22 On June 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. 8.) On August 1, 2025, 23 a document submitted by Plaintiff was lodged with the Court as a second amended complaint. 24 (Doc. 9.) 25 On August 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed correspondence docketed as a motion to appoint counsel 26 and notice. (Doc. 10.) The Court issued its Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel 27 on August 8, 2025. (Doc. 11.) The Court also advised Plaintiff that the document lodged August 1 be “’complete in itself without reference to the prior’ complaint,” that Plaintiff should use the 2 civil rights complaint form, and that any submitted complaint was subject to screening. (Id. at 5.) 3 On January 14, 2026, the Court issued its First Screening Order based on the operative 4 first amended complaint. (Doc. 13.) Specifically, the Court found that it violated Rule 8 of the 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (id. at 6-7), failed to link any defendant to a constitutional 6 violation (id. at 7), named entities entitled to immunity (id. at 8-9) and asserted improper claims 7 (id. at 10-11). Plaintiff was also provided with legal standards applicable to his potential claims. 8 (Id. at 12-13.) Because Plaintiff’s first amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which 9 relief could be granted, he was given leave to file a second amended complaint within 21 days, 10 curing the deficiencies identified in the screening order. (Id. at 14-15.) 11 More than 21 days have passed, but Plaintiff has failed to file a second amended 12 complaint. 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 15 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 16 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 17 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 18 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 19 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 20 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 21 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 22 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 23 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 24 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 25 Here, Plaintiff has failed to obey the Court’s screening order directing him to file a second 26 amended complaint within 21 days. Nor has Plaintiff sought an extension of time within which to 27 do so. 1 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of 3 the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 4 with the Court’s order of January 14, 2026. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file 5 a second amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified in the First Screening Order. 6 WARNING: Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause (OSC) will result in a 7 recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 8 obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

11 Dated: February 12, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Edward Harry Constable v. Kathleen Allison, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Edward Harry Constable v. Kathleen Allison, et al. (Edward Harry Constable v. Kathleen Allison, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related