1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND E. MOORE, Jr., Case No. 2:22-cv-1517-DJC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BUTTE COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 This civil rights action proceeds against defendant Shoemaker. On July 30, 2025, I 19 recommended that defendant Sage be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service 20 within the period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). ECF No. 68. I also 21 notified plaintiff that there appeared to be an issue with defendant Shoemaker’s service. Id. at 2. 22 While recognizing that service for Shoemaker was returned as executed, see ECF No. 42, I 23 explained that I was unsure whether service was properly effectuated. The USM checked the box 24 indicating personal service but identified a Kerry Cox (RN) as the individual served. See id. 25 Nothing on the service form indicates whether Cox was legally allowed to accept service on 26 Shoemaker’s behalf. 27 28 1 With that in mind, I gave plaintiff the option either to have the USM re-serve Shoemaker 2 || or to seek Shoemaker’s entry of default, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. I told plaintiff that should he 3 | wish to have the USM to re-serve Shoemaker, he must return the USM-285 form and a copy of 4 | the second amended complaint within thirty days. To date, plaintiff has not responded to the July 5 | 30 order, and this case has remained inactive. 6 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 7 || power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 8 |

, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 9 | comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 10 | Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss 11 | an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure 12 | tocomply with local rules. See Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 13 | (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 14 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause within fourteen days 15 | of the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ November 18, 2025 Q_-——— 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28