(PS) Millsaps v. State Farm Insurance Companies

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 24, 20252:24-cv-03673California425 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICIA G. MILLSAPS, Case No. 2:24-cv-3673-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 STATE FARM INSURANCE

COMPANIES,

15 Defendant. 16 17 On February 11, 2025, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for lack of 18 jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. ECF 3. I ordered plaintiff to file, within thirty days, 19 either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. Id. I subsequently 20 granted plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and gave her until April 10, 2025, to file an 21 amended complaint. ECF No. 5. Despite that extension, she has not filed an amended complaint. 22 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 23 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 24 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 25 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.