(PC) Dison v. Reaves

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 3, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00876
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD RAY DISON, JR., Case No.: 1:24-cv-00876-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 14 R. REAVES, et al., 21-DAY RESPONSE DEADLINE 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Donald Ray Dison, Jr., is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On May 5, 2025, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 14.) The Court found 21 that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and violated 22 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules and Civil Procedure. (Id. at 4-14.) Plaintiff was directed to file a first 23 amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified in the screening order, or to file a notice of 24 voluntary dismissal, within 21 days. (Id. at 14-15.) Plaintiff has failed to file a first amended 25 complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 1 be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 2 or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power 3 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 4 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 5 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 6 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 7 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. 8 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 9 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 10 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 11 In the screening order, the Court explained the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint, 12 provided relevant legal standards for the potential claims, and directed Plaintiff to file a first 13 amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified in the order, or, in the alternative, to file a 14 notice of voluntary dismissal, within 21 days. More than 21 days, plus time for mailing, have 15 passed and Plaintiff has filed neither a first amended complaint nor a notice of voluntary 16 dismissal. 17 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 18 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of 19 the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 20 with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a first amended 21 complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 22 Failure to comply with this order to show cause will result in a recommendation that 23 this action be dismissed for a failure to a failure to comply with court orders and failure to 24 prosecute. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26

27 Dated: June 3, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27