Osman

Miguel Enrique Diaz v. M. Osman, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 13, 20252:23-cv-01449California377 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 MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-1449-DAD-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 M. OSMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 On June 17, 2025, I granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 17 44. I also notified plaintiff that I would not grant any further extensions absent extraordinary 18 circumstances. To date, plaintiff has not complied with that order. 19 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 20 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 21 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 22 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 23 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss 24 an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure 25 to…

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.