1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 HENRY B. BURIS, Case No. 2:25-cv-2760-JDP (P)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 On March 3, 2026, I directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days of
18 my order’s entry. ECF No. 17. That deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not complied with or
19 otherwise responded to my order.
20 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that
21 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty.,
22 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to
23 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the
24 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss
25 an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure
26 to comply with local rules. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)
27 (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
28 I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his
1 | failure to comply with my order. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute another
2 | failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be
3 | dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within fourteen days why this case
4 | should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to
5 | state aclaim. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within fourteen
6 | days, either his amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.
7
g IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ May 7, 2026 aw——
10 JEREMY D. PETERSON
1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.