1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERBERT HUBER, No. 2:25-cv-1311-DC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FISHER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Herbert Huber proceeds without counsel and seeks relief for an alleged violation 18 of his Fourth Amendment rights based on the seizure of his vehicle. On September 24, 2025, the 19 undersigned determined service of the first amended complaint was appropriate for Officer Fisher 20 and ordered plaintiff to supply the U.S. Marshal with the information needed to effectuate service 21 of process within 30 days. Within 10 days after that, plaintiff was to file a statement with the 22 court indicating the Marshal has the documents. Plaintiff was specifically cautioned that failure to 23 comply with that order could result in any appropriate sanctions, including monetary sanctions 24 and/or dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The time granted 25 has expired and plaintiff has not filed a statement with the court indicating the Marshal has the 26 documents. 27 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that 28 power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City 1 || of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 2 || party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 3 || Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with 4 | acourt order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

(9th 5 || Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan,

| 1421, 1424 (th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 Plaintiff is informed that his failure to supply the U.S. Marshal with the information 8 | needed to effectuate service of process within the time frame granted to do so violates the court’s 9 || order dated September 24, 2025. Plaintiff is cautioned that continued failure to supply the U.S. 10 || Marshal with the information needed to effectuate service of process or otherwise respond to this 11 | order will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 12 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that within 14 days of the date of this 13 || order, plaintiff shall either comply with the instructions in the court’s September 24, 2025 order 14 || to supply the U.S. Marshal with the information needed to effectuate service of process or, in the 15 || alternative, explain in writing plaintiffs reasons for the delay. 16 | Dated: November 26, 2025 / ae □□ / a Ly a

18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 8,nube1311.nousmo 22 23 24 25 26 27 28