(PC) Christensen v. Sacramento County Sheriff Dept.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHAD ANDRE CHRISTENSEN, Case No. 2:24-cv-2088-JDP (P) Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT,
15 Defendant. 16 17 On November 8, 2024, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that it did not 18 state a claim. ECF No. 5. I ordered him to file, within thirty days, either an amended complaint 19 or a notice stating his intent to stand by his current complaint. Id. To date, plaintiff has not filed 20 an amended complaint. 21 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 22 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 23 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 24 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 25 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss 26 an action based on a party’s failure to…