Michael Benanti v. J. Doerer, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL BENANTI, Case No.: 1:24-cv-01108-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO J. DOERER, et al., PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE

18 Plaintiff Michael Benanti is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action.

20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On December 4, 2025, District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston issued her Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted and Granting Leave to Amend Certain Claims. (Doc. 51.) In relevant part, Plaintiff was granted “leave to file an amended complaint, within 30 days of the date of service of [the] order and curing the deficiencies identified in the Findings and Recommendations … and the First Screening Order, concerning” only Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim and the Federal Tort Claims 1 More than 30 days have passed, but Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or to otherwise contact the Court.

3 II. DISCUSSION 4 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure 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.”

7 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. 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).

15 Here, Plaintiff has failed to obey Judge Thurston’s December 4, 2025, order directing him to file an amended complaint within 30 days.1 Nor has Plaintiff sought an extension of time within which to do so.

18 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s order of December 4, 2025. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified in the Findings and Recommendations issued October 24, 2025, concerning a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs arising under the Eighth Amendment and any Federal Tort Claims Act claims.

25 // // 12/4/25 + 30 days = 1/3/26. Because January 3 was a Saturday, the amended complaint was due on or before 1 Any failure by Plaintiff to comply with this Order to Show Cause (OSC) will result | in arecommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure | to obey court orders and failure to prosecute.

4 | ITIS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 12, 2026 | Mnnrd Rr 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE