Harris v. Rios et al

Filing 46

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should not be DISMISSED for Failure to Comply with Court Order; ORDER Plaintiff to File Fourth Amended Complaint by September 13, 2011, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 08/16/2011. Show Cause Response due by 9/13/2011.(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS,

10

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-0781-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

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

H.A. RIOS, et al.
(ECF No. 45)

13

Defendants.
PLAINTIFF MUST FILE FOURTH
AMENDED COMPLAINT BY SEPTEMBER
13, 2011

14
15

/

16
Plaintiff Donte Rolando Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and
17
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
18
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
19
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Third Amended Complaint on May 18, 2011.
20
(Mot., ECF No. 44.) On June 14, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion. (Order, ECF
21
No. 45.) Plaintiff was to file his Fourth Amended Complaint by July 20, 2011. This
22
deadline has passed, and to date Plaintiff has not filed a Fourth Amended Complaint or a
23
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 June 14, 2011 Order, even though the July

10

20, 2011 deadline contained in the Order has passed. (Order, ECF No. 45.) Accordingly,

11

Plaintiff shall file a Fourth Amended Complaint no later than September 13, 2011, or show

12

cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order

13

and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is hereby on notice that failure to meet this deadline

14

will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:
ci4d6

August 16, 2011

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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