(PC) Ramsom v. Sacramento Police Dept.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONSHEA LAVON RANSOM, Case No. 2:23-cv-0638-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 15, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 27. When plaintiff did 18 not file a timely response, the court issued an order to show cause.1 ECF No. 30. The court 19 expressly warned plaintiff that she must file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 20 defendants’ motion within twenty-one days or the court would dismiss this action for failure to 21 prosecute and failure to comply with the local rules. The time for plaintiff to comply has passed 22 without word from her. Accordingly, dismissal is warranted. 23 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 24 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 25 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 26 comply with these Rules or with…