Harold Walker et al v. P.L. Vazquez, etal
Filing
18
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Comply With Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/19/2011. Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
HAROLD WALKER,
10
11
12
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-2123-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER
v.
JOSHUA FERGERSON, et al.
(ECF No. 17)
13
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS
14
15
/
16
Plaintiff Harold Walker (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and
17
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has
18
consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.)
19
On July 29, 2011, the Court issued a Screening Order dismissing Plaintiff’s
20
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Order, ECF No.
21
17.) Plaintiff was to file his Amended Complaint by September 6, 2011. (Id.) This
22
deadline has passed, and to date Plaintiff has not filed an 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 July 29, 2011 Order, even though the
10
September 6, 2011 deadline contained in the Order has passed. (Order, ECF No. 17.)
11
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint no later than within thirty (30) days
12
of entry of this Order, or show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for failure
13
to comply with a Court order and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is hereby on notice that
14
failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated:
ci4d6
September 19, 2011
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?