Unknown

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD ANTHONY NIELSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-0794-JDP (P)

12 Petitioner,

ORDER; FINDINGS AND

13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On May 23, 2025, the court screened the petition and found that it failed to state a claim. 18 The court granted petitioner thirty days to file an amended petition. ECF No. 8. Petitioner did 19 not timely file an amended petition, therefore, on July 21, 2025, the court ordered petitioner to 20 show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to state a claim, failure to 21 prosecute, and failure to comply with court orders. ECF No. 10. Petitioner has not responded to 22 the order to show cause, and the time to do so has passed.1 Accordingly, dismissal of the action is 23 warranted. 24 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 25 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 26

27 1 Although it…