1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVONTE B. HARRIS, Case No.: 1:25-cv-01347-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE

13 v. IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE

TO FILE AN APPLICATION TO PROCEED

14 MINA BUSHAR, IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR TO PAY THE

FILING FEE FOR THIS ACTION

15 Defendant. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16

17 Plaintiff Devonte B. Harris is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. section 1983. 19 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 20 On October 14, 2025, the Court issued its Order to Submit Application to Proceed In 21 Forma Pauperis (IFP) or Pay Filing Fee Within 45 Days. (Doc. 4.) The order was served to 22 Plaintiff that same date. 23 Although more than 45 days have passed following service of the order, Plaintiff has not 24 filed an IFP application or paid the required filing fee for this action. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 The Local Rules, corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 27 provide that the “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may 1 of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, 2 in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. 3 Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 4 action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local 5 rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure 6 to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 7 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 8 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local 9 rules). 10 Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s October 14, 2025, order. Although 11 more than 45 days have passed, Plaintiff has not filed an IFP application or paid the required 12 $405 filing fee for this action. 13 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 14 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 days of 15 the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 16 with the Court’s order of October 14, 2025. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may 17 apply to proceed IFP or pay the filing fee in full. 18 Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause (OSC) will result in a 19 recommendation that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders 20 and failure to prosecute. 21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

23 Dated: December 8, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24

25 26 27