(PC) Jakubowski v. Clendenin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID JAKUBOWSKI, 1:23-cv-01156-SKO 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 12 v. DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 13 STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 14 Defendants.

15 16 17 Plaintiff David Jakubowski is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Following screening, this action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due 21 process violation against Defendants Price, Van de Putte, and Fulton. (See Doc. 8.) 22 On April 2, 2025, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate. (Doc. 9.) 23 Plaintiff was provided USM-285 forms, summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, 24 and a copy of the endorsed complaint. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff was directed to return those 25 documents, as outlined in the order, within 30 days. (Id.) Although more than 30 days have 26 passed, Plaintiff has failed to return the completed service documents to the Court. 27 // 28 // 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 3 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 4 be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 5 or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power 6 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 7 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 8 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 9 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 10 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. 11 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 12 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 13 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 14 In its Order Finding Service Appropriate, Plaintiff was provided with all necessary service 15 forms and documents. (Doc. 9.) He was directed to complete the documents —the Notice of 16 Submission of Documents form, along with a completed summons and a completed USM-285 17 form for each defendant, and four copies of the endorsed complaint, and was to return those 18 documents to the Court within 30 days. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was expressly warned: “Plaintiff is 19 informed that failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this 20 action be dismissed without prejudice for a failure to obey a court order.” (Id., emphasis in 21 original.) 22 Although more than 30 days have passed, Plaintiff has failed to submit the required 23 completed service documents as ordered. 24 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 25 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 days of 26 the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 27 with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may return the completed 28 service documents to the Court. 1 Failure to comply with this order to show cause will result in a recommendation that 2 this action be dismissed for a failure to a failure to comply with a court order. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: May 7, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28