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)

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