Pollard v. Harrington

Filing 44

ORDER To SHOW CAUSE Why Cause Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure To Comply With Court Order And Failure To State A Claim (ECF No. 41 ), Amended Complaint Due Within Fourteen Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/10/2012. Show Cause Response due by 11/29/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JERRY EMANUEL POLLARD,

10
11
12

CASE No. 1:09-cv-01232-LJO-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CAUSE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM

v.
K. HARRINGTON,

13
Defendant.

(ECF No. 41)

14
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

15
/
16
17
18

Plaintiff Jerry Emanuel Pollard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on August 30, 2012, and found that it failed

20

to state a cognizable claim, but gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint

21

on or before October 29, 2012. (ECF Nos. 41 & 43.) October 29, 2012, has passed

22

without Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or a request for an extension of time

23

to do so.

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

sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing
-1-

1

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s

2

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local

3

rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

4

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

5

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

6

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

7

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

8

Plaintiff has not adequately responded to the Court’s August 30, 2012, Order. He

9

will be given one more opportunity, from fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order, and no

10

later, to file an amended complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed

11

for failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a claim. Failure to meet this

12

deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:
ci4d6

November 10, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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