Matteson

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADRIAN DAVID JOHNSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-2838-TLN-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 G. MATTESON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 27, 2025, I ordered plaintiff to file, within thirty days, either an amended 18 complaint or a notice indicating his intent to proceed only with his Eighth Amendment claim and 19 negligence claim against Wamble, Robarge, Matteson, and the “Doe” defendants solely in their 20 individual capacities. ECF No. 5. To date, plaintiff has not filed any response. 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…