Opinion
2:24-cv-03591-FWS-ADS
05-14-2024
Adam Michael Kendall v. Ongaro et al.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
PROCEEDINGS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE FAILURE TO SIGN COMPLAINT [1]
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name-or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a); see also L.R. 11-1 (“All documents, except declarations, shall be signed by the attorney for the party or the party appearing pro se. The name of the person signing the document shall be clearly typed below the signature line.”). In addition, “[t]he paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a). “The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.” Id.
On April 30, 2024, Plaintiff Adam Michael Kendall (“Plaintiff”) filed a Civil Rights Complaint. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff did not sign this Complaint or provide his address, e-mail address, and telephone number as required by Rule 11. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a); L.R. 11-1. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by June 11, 2024, why the Complaint should not be stricken for failure to comply with Rule 11. Plaintiff may discharge this Order to Show Cause by filing an amended complaint that include Plaintiff's signature and the information required by Rule 11.
Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 11 will result in the Complaint being stricken and may result in dismissal of this action for failure to comply with court orders or prosecute this action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) ; Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.