Mack v. Witcher, et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With Court Order 30 , Plaintiff Must File Amended Complaint by November 7, 2011, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/23/11. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Forma)(Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANTHONY E. MACK,
CASE NO. 1:04-cv-5787-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
M K WITCHER, et al.,
(ECF No. 30)
PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT BY NOVEMBER 7, 2011
Plaintiff Anthony E. Mack (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On August 10, 2011, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Stay,
and ordering Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint by September 12, 2011.
(Order, ECF No. 30.) Prior to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Stay, the Court had screened
Plaintiff’s Complaint, found that it failed to state a cognizable claim, and gave Plaintiff leave
to amend. (Order, ECF No. 24.) The September 12, 2011 deadline has passed, and
Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint or a request for an extension.
Local Rule 110 provides that “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.” District courts have the inherent
power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose
sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing
Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 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, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of
prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s August 10, 2011 Order, even though the
September 12, 2011 deadline contained in the Order has passed. (Order, ECF No. 30.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint no later than November 7,
2011, or show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with
a Court order and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is hereby on notice that failure to meet
this deadline will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 23, 2011
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?