White v. Cate et al

Filing 8

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHARLES R. WHITE, Plaintiff, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:10-cv-42-MJS (PC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER v. (ECF No. 7) 12 MATTHEW CATE, et al., PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW CAUSE OR FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT BY JUNE 13, 2011 Defendants. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Charles R. White is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to 17 the Magistrate Judge handling all matters in this action. (ECF No. 5.) On March 29, 2011, 18 the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Plaintiff 19 leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 7.) Nothing further has 20 been filed. 21 Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 22 Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 23 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have 24 the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may 25 impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. 26 Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 27 prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, 28 1 1 or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 2 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 3 complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 4 failure to prosecute and failure to comply with local rules). 5 More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint 6 or otherwise responded to the Court’s March 29, 2011 Order. The Court cannot allow this 7 case to languish on its docket without an operative complaint. Accordingly, not later than 8 June 13, 2011, Plaintiff shall either file an amended complaint or show cause as to why 9 his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order and failure to 10 state a claim. Plaintiff is warned that failure to meet this deadline will result in the 11 immediate dismissal of this action. 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: ci4d6 May 9, 2011 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 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?