Romero v. Yates et al

Filing 21

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Comply With a Court Order; ORDER Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint or Notification of His Willingness to Proceed Only on Cognizable Equal Protection Claim Due Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/6/11. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
RAMIRO ROMERO,

CASE NO.

1:08-cv-00669-LJO-MJS (PC)

9
10
11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

12

P L A INT IFF ’S S EC ON D A ME ND ED
COMPLAINT OR NOTIFICATION OF HIS
WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ONLY ON
COGNIZABLE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM
DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

JAMES A YATES, M.D., et al.,
13
14

Defendants.

15

/

16
Plaintiff Ramiro Romero (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
17
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
On May 18, 2011, the Court issued a Screening Order directing Plaintiff to either file
19
a second amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his
20
cognizable equal protection claim by June 21, 2011. (Order, ECF No. 20.) This deadline
21
has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint or otherwise
22
responded to the Order.
23
Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
24
Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court
25
of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have
26
the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may
27
impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.
28

1

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with

2

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order,

3

or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

4

(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of

5

complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for

6

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with local rules).

7

The Court will afford Plaintiff one additional opportunity to comply with its prior order.

8

Within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order, Plaintiff must submit his Second Amended

9

Complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his cognizable equal

10

protection claim. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this

11

action.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:
ci4d6

July 6, 2011

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-