Mack v. Witcher, et al

Filing 31

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANTHONY E. MACK, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:04-cv-5787-LJO-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER v. M K WITCHER, et al., 13 (ECF No. 30) Defendants. 14 15 PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT BY NOVEMBER 7, 2011 / 16 Plaintiff Anthony E. Mack (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 On August 10, 2011, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Stay, 19 and ordering Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint by September 12, 2011. 20 (Order, ECF No. 30.) Prior to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Stay, the Court had screened 21 Plaintiff’s Complaint, found that it failed to state a cognizable claim, and gave Plaintiff leave 22 to amend. (Order, ECF No. 24.) The September 12, 2011 deadline has passed, and 23 Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint or a request for an extension. 24 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 25 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and 26 all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent 27 power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose 28 -1- 1 sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing 2 Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 3 failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 4 rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for 5 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 6 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 7 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 8 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 9 Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s August 10, 2011 Order, even though the 10 September 12, 2011 deadline contained in the Order has passed. (Order, ECF No. 30.) 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint no later than November 7, 12 2011, or show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with 13 a Court order and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is hereby on notice that failure to meet 14 this deadline will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: ci4d6 October 23, 2011 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?