(PC) Moore v. Butte County et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RAYMOND E. MOORE, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BUTTE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:22-cv-1517-DJC-JDP (P)
ORDER
This civil rights action proceeds against defendant Shoemaker. On July 30, 2025, I
recommended that defendant Sage be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service
within the period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). ECF No. 68. I also
notified plaintiff that there appeared to be an issue with defendant Shoemaker’s service. Id. at 2.
While recognizing that service for Shoemaker was returned as executed, see ECF No. 42, I
explained that I was unsure whether service was properly effectuated. The USM checked the box
indicating personal service but identified a Kerry Cox (RN) as the individual served. See id.
Nothing on the service form indicates whether Cox was legally allowed to accept service on
Shoemaker’s behalf.
Case 2:22-cv-01517-DJC-JDP Document 70 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
With that in mind, I gave plaintiff the option either to have the USM re-serve Shoemaker
or to seek Shoemaker’s entry of default, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. I told plaintiff that should he
wish to have the USM to re-serve Shoemaker, he must return the USM-285 form and a copy of
the second amended complaint within thirty days. To date, plaintiff has not responded to the July
30 order, and this case has remained inactive.
The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that
power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty.,
216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure 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 . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss
an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure
to comply with local rules. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)
(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause within fourteen days
of the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2025
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:22-cv-01517-DJC-JDP Document 70 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 2