(PS) Robinson v. Carmax Auto Finance, LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY ROBINSON, JR., Case No. 2:24-cv-2795-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CARMAX AUTO FINANCE, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Anthony Robinson, Jr., is proceeding in this action pro se.1 On May 8, 2025, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application be denied and the Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. 5/8/2025 Findings & Recommendations (ECF No. 3.) On June 16, 2025, the district court adopted the May 8, 2025 Findings and Recommendations in full, denied Plaintiff’s IFP application, dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend, and granted Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. 6/16/2025 Order (ECF No. 4.)

24 Plaintiff was further ordered to pay the filing fee at the time of filing the amended complaint. (Id. at 2.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or paid the filing fee. See Docket.

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21).

1 A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a | plaintiff's case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where the plaintiff fails || to prosecute his or her case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules | of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 5 | 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to || prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 | (Qth Cir. 2005) (approving sua sponte dismissals under Rule 41(b)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, | 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal | Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to | comply with any order of the court.”). This Court’s Local Rules are in accord. See E.D.

11 | Cal. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with | any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all || sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”); E.D.

14 | Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se party’s failure to comply with the Federal || Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s Local Rules, and other applicable law may support, | among other things, dismissal of that party’s action).

17 The Court has considered whether this action should be dismissed at this juncture | due to Plaintiffs’ failure to file an amended complaint and pay the filing fee as ordered by || the Court. Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court first attempts lesser | sanctions by issuing this order to show cause. Plaintiff has twenty-one (21) days to || respond to this order to show cause and file an amended complaint in compliance with | the Court’s May 8, 2025 Findings and Recommendations and pay the filing fee at the | time of filing the amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond to this | order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute.

25 | Dated: 08/07/25 C iy s \U 26 CHI SOO KIM 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || 4, robi2795.24