(PS) Meyer v. Chan

Opinion

LIAM MEYER TRUST, LIAM MEYER, Case No. 2:23-cv-0718-DC-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS SIMON CHAN, et al.,

Defendants. On October 2, 2024, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that it did not state a claim. ECF No. 3. I ordered him to file, within thirty days, either an amended complaint or a notice stating his intent to stand by his current complaint. Id. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (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 failure to file an amended complaint or advisement of his intent to not file an amended complaint. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within fourteen days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within fourteen days, an amended complaint. ( 1 ow — Dated: _ November 19, 2024 Q_—_—. JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE