Carter v. Grannis, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE for Failure to Comply with the Court's February 10, 2011 8 Screening Order; Plaintiff Must Show Cause or File an Amended Complaint by June 27, 2011 signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 5/20/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DESHA M. CARTER,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14

v.
N. GRANNIS, et al.,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00043-GBC (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY THE COURT’S FEBRUARY
10, 2011 SCREENING ORDER
(ECF No. 8)

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW CAUSE OR FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BY JUNE 27,
/ 2011

15
ORDER
16
Plaintiff Desha M. Carter is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 10, 2011, the
18
Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that it failed to state any claims upon which
19
relief could be granted. (ECF No. 8.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint and
20
ordered him to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff was warned that
21
failure to comply with the Court’s Order may result in dismissal of this action for failure to
22
state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Id.)
23
Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
24
Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court
25
of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have
26
the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may
27
impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.
28
1

1

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with

2

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order,

3

or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir.

4

1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

5

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment

6

of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure

7

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);

8

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

9

comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

10

(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

11

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the

12

Court’s February 10, 2011 Screening Order and well in excess of thirty days has passed.

13

Accordingly, not later than June 27, 2011, Plaintiff shall either file an amended complaint

14

or show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed.

15

Plaintiff is hereby on notice that failure to comply with this Order will result in

16

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim upon which relief

17

could be granted.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated:
1j0bbc

May 20, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2