(PC) Andrew v. United States

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORVELL ANDREW, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01290-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE TO RESPOND 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Norvell Andrew is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action.

19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On May 2, 2025, the Court issued its Order Finding Service of Second Amended Complaint Appropriate and Forwarding Service Documents to Plaintiff for Completion and Return Within Thirty Days. (Doc. 50.) Specifically, service was deemed appropriate for Defendants Palentghi, Placencia, and Spheres. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff was provided USM-285 forms, summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of her second amended complaint, and was directed to return the completed documents within 30 days.

26 (Id. at 3-4.)

27 More than 30 days, plus time for mailing, have elapsed but Plaintiff has failed to return the completed service documents to the Court.

1 I. DISCUSSION 2 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, | “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with .. . any order of the Court may be grounds for | the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”

5 | Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising | 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 | party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., | Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a | court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 11 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, | 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

13 Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s May 2, 2025, order concerning | service of process. Despite the passage of 40 days, Plaintiff has failed return the completed || service documents to the Court.

16 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 days of | the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for her failure to comply | with the Court’s order of May 2, 2025. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may return | the completed service documents to the Court.

21 Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause will result in a recommendation | that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to obey court orders and failure to | prosecute.

24 | IT IS ORDERED. | Dated: _ June 12, 2025 | Wr bo 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE