Christensen v. State of California et al

Filing 13

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Case Should not be DISMISSED for Failure to Comply with Court Order; Plaintiff must File Amended Complaint by September 12, 2011, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 08/16/2011. Show Cause Response due by 9/12/2011.(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JEREMY ROBERT CHRISTENSEN,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1952-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

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

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

(ECF No. 12)
13
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT BY SEPTEMBER 12, 2011

14
15

/

16
Plaintiff Jeremy Robert Christensen (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro
17
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
On June 28, 2011, the Court issued a Screening Order dismissing Plaintiff’s
19
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Order, ECF No.
20
12.) Plaintiff was to file his Amended Complaint by August 1, 2011. (Id.) This deadline
21
has passed, and to date Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint or a request for an
22
extension.
23
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
24
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and
25
all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent
26
power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose
27
sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing
28
-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 responded to the Court’s June 28, 2011 Order, even though the

9

August 1, 2011 deadline contained in the Order has passed. (Order, ECF No. 12.)

10

Accordingly, no later than September 12, 2011, Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint

11

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

12

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

13

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

14
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-