1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 TOBBUSHA DURANT PRATT, Case No. 1:21-cv-01608-NONE-SKO

10 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

11 v. A FOC RT I PO LN A S INH TO IU FFL ’D S FN AO IT L UB RE ED TIS OM ISSED 12 COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

AND FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

13 HERLINDA YANDEZ, et al., (Doc. 3) 14 Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE

15 _____________________________________/ 16

17 18 19 Plaintiff Tobbusha Durant Pratt, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on 20 November 4, 2021, along with a “Fee Waiver Request.” (Docs. 1, 2.) On November 8, 2021, the 21 Court advised Plaintiff that the “Fee Waiver Request” does not comply with the specific 22 informational requirements for affidavits submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and directed 23 Plaintiff to either pay the $402.00 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by 24 no later than thirty days from the date of service of the Court’s order. (Doc. 3.) To date, Plaintiff 25 has not complied with the Court’s November 8, 2021 Order. (See Docket.) 26 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 27 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 28 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 1 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 2 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 3 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 4 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 5 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 6 local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 7 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 8 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 9 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 10 with local rules). 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the 12 date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with 13 the Court’s November 8, 2021 Order and for his failure to prosecute this action. Alternatively, 14 within that same time, Plaintiff may either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a 15 prisoner, a copy of which is attached to this Order, or pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action. 16 Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that, if he fails to take action within twenty-one (21) days of the date of 17 service of this Order, the undersigned will recommend to the presiding district court judge that this 18 action be dismissed, in its entirety. 19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21 Dated: December 21, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22

23

24

25 26 27 28