Desiree Peterson v. Sacramento Department of Child Support Services

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DESIREE PETERSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-2759-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF

CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

15 Defendant. 16 17 On July 29, 2025, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a 18 claim. ECF No. 3. I ordered plaintiff to file, within thirty days, either an amended complaint or a 19 notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. Id. To date, plaintiff has not complied with that 20 order. 21 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 22 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 23 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 24 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 25 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss 26 an action based on a…