United States District Court, E.D. California
GS L. LOVE El, et al., Plaintiffs,
TROY NUNLEY, et al., Defendants.
KENDALL J. NEWMAN 1395 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
October 7, 2019, plaintiff GS L. Love El,  who is proceeding
without counsel in this action, was granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 9.) Simultaneously, the court
dismissed plaintiff's complaint and granted him leave to
amend. (Id.) The court ordered that within 28 days,
or by November 4, 2019, “plaintiff shall file either
(a) a first amended complaint in accordance with this order,
or (b) a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without
prejudice.” (Id. at 4.) The court also warned
plaintiff that “[f]ailure to file either a first
amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice by the required deadline may result in dismissal of
the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).” (Id. at 5.) The deadline
having passed, plaintiff has failed to file a first amended
complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.
se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that
govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814
F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (overruled on other grounds). A
district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary
dismissal of a plaintiff's case pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that 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. 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 (9th Cir. 2005)
(stating that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a
plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules
of civil procedure or the court's orders); Ghazali v.
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)
(“Failure to follow a district court's local rules
is a proper ground for dismissal”); Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (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”); Thompson v.
Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th
Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have
inherent power to control their dockets and may impose
sanctions including dismissal or default).
court's Local Rules are in accord. Eastern District Local
Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure 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.” Moreover, Eastern
District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:
Any individual representing himself or herself without an
attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal
Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law. All
obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules
apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to
comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by
default, or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.
E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a).
court has considered recommending dismissal of this action
based upon plaintiffs failure to follow the court's
October 7, 2019 order. However, in light of plaintiff s pro
se status, and the court's strong desire to have this
matter resolved on the merits, the court affords plaintiff
another opportunity to comply with the court's prior
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within 14 days of this order plaintiff shall (a) show
cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed and
(b) file a first amended complaint in accordance with the
court's October 7, 2019 order. (ECF No. 9.)
2. Plaintiffs failure to file the required response shall
constitute an additional ground for, and plaintiffs consent
to, a recommendation that plaintiffs case be involuntarily
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 110 and 183(a).
 The “Mororish Science Temple of
America” is also listed as a plaintiff in this action,
but it is unclear how the Temple has standing in this action
for false arrest. Additionally, the Temple is not represented
by counsel, as required by federal law. See Rowland v.
California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory
Council, 506 U.S. ...