Merritt

I. INTRODUCTION

20 Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October 16, 2023. (Doc. 14.) On 21 September 16, 2024, the Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 15.) The Court found 22 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 23 (Id. at 4-8.) Plaintiff was given one final opportunity to cure the deficiencies identified in the 24 screening order, and was granted leave to file a third amended complaint or a notice of voluntary 25 dismissal within 21 days of the date of the order. (Id. at 8-9.) More than 21 days have passed, and 26 Plaintiff has failed to file either a third amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

II. DISCUSSION

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may…