1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES ELLIS, 1:23-cv-01344-KES-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

13 v. FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER

CONCERNING THE RETURN OF

14 KERN MEDICAL CENTER, et al., SERVICE DOCUMENTS

15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE TO RESPOND

16

17 Plaintiff Charles Ellis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 On July 25, 2025, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate. (Doc. 16.) 20 Service was deemed appropriate for Defendants Hodge and Gonzalez. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was 21 provided USM-285 forms, summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an 22 instruction sheet, and a copy of his first amended complaint, and was directed to return the 23 completed documents within 30 days. (Id. at 2-5.) 24 When the Court’s order was returned by the United States Postal Service marked 25 “Undeliverable,” “Unable to ID,” and “Vacant,” the Clerk of the Court re-served the order to 26 Plaintiff at Wasco State Prison on August 4, 2025. (See Docket entry dated 8/4/2025.) Although 27 more than 30 days, plus time for mailing, have passed following re-service of the order, Plaintiff 28 has failed to return the completed service documents to the Court. 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Local Rules, corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 3 provide that the “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may 4 be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power 5 of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, 6 in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. 7 Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 8 action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local 9 rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure 10 to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 11 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 12 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local 13 rules). 14 Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s July 25, 2025, order regarding service 15 of process. Although more than 40 days have passed, Plaintiff has failed to timely return the 16 completed service documents to the Court. 17 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 19 days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to 20 comply with the Court’s order of July 25, 2025. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff 21 may return the completed service documents to the Court. 22 Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause (OSC) will result in a 23 recommendation that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders 24 and failure to prosecute. 25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

27 Dated: September 16, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28