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)

Download PDF
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-

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?