Patrick Duane Walker v. United States of America, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01513
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 PATRICK DUANE WALKER, Case No. 1:25-cv-01513-SKO

10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 11 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., (Doc. 4) 13 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 14 _____________________________________/

15 16 Plaintiff Patrick Duane Walker is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. 17 (Docs. 1, 3.) Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 7, 2025. 18 On December 1, 2025, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to 19 state any cognizable claims and granting leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 20 thirty days or to notify the Court that he wishes to stand on his complaint. (Doc. 4.) The screening 21 order was served on Plaintiff by mail on December 1, 2025. (See Docket.) To date, Plaintiff has 22 not filed an amended complaint, notified the Court of his intention to stand on his complaint, or 23 requested an extension of time within which to do so. 24 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 25 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 26 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 27 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 28 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 1 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 2 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure 3 to prosecute an action, to obey a court order, or to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. 4 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 5 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 6 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 7 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days of the 9 date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be 10 dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute his 11 case. Alternatively, within that same period, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, a statement 12 indicating he stands on his original complaint, or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further 13 CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to act within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this 14 order, the Court will recommend to a presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in 15 its entirety. 16 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 17 on the docket for this matter. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19

20 Dated: January 7, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28