1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ARTEAGA, Case No.: 1:19-cv-01001-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CASE WHY ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

13 v. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

THE COURT’S ORDER

14 D. NEVE, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jose Arteaga is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. On August 31, 2019, the Court issued an order requiring 19 Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), or to pay the filing fee for 20 this action. (Doc. 4.) Upon Plaintiff’s motions, the Court granted Plaintiff two extensions of time 21 to respond to the Court’s order. (Docs. 7, 9.) Although the extended deadline has passed, Plaintiff 22 has failed to file an IFP application, pay the filing fee, or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 23 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 24 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for 25 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” 26 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 27 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 1 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 2 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 3 court order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for 4 failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 5 (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service 7 of this order why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s 8 August 31, 2019 order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an application to 9 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order 10 will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s 11 order. 12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Sheila K. Oberto 14 Dated: November 18, 2019 /s/ .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27