Hawkins v. State of California et al

Filing 17

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case should not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to State a Claim; Plaintiff must File Amended Complaint by April 27, 2012 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/13/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LEROY HAWKINS, JR.,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1705–MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

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

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

13

(ECF No. 15)
Defendants.

14

PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT BY APRIL 27, 2012

15
/
16
17

Plaintiff Leroy Hawkins, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has

19

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.)

20

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on February 27, 2012, and found that it

21

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

22

complaint on or before March 31, 2012. (ECF No. 15.) March 31, 2012, has passed

23

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

24

to do so.

25

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

26

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and

27

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent

28

power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose
-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 February 27, 2012, Order. He will be

10

given one more opportunity, until April 27, 2012, and no later, to file an amended

11

complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

12

a Court order and failure to state a claim. Failure to meet this deadline will result in

13

dismissal of this action.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:
ci4d6

April 13, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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