White v. Cate et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/9/2011. Show Cause Response due by 6/13/2011. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHARLES R. WHITE,
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-42-MJS (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 7)
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW CAUSE OR FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT BY JUNE 13, 2011
Plaintiff Charles R. White is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to
the Magistrate Judge handling all matters in this action. (ECF No. 5.) On March 29, 2011,
the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Plaintiff
leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 7.) Nothing further has
Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court
of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have
the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may
impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order,
or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61
(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of
complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with local rules).
More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint
or otherwise responded to the Court’s March 29, 2011 Order. The Court cannot allow this
case to languish on its docket without an operative complaint. Accordingly, not later than
June 13, 2011, Plaintiff shall either file an amended complaint or show cause as to why
his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order and failure to
state a claim. Plaintiff is warned that failure to meet this deadline will result in the
immediate dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 9, 2011
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?