Turner v. Medical Dept. of Fresno County Jail

Filing 11

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/19/2012. Show Cause Response / Amended Complaint due by 4/3/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

BRIAN TURNER,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-564-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
v.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A
MEDICAL DEPT. OF FRESNO COUNTY CLAIM
JAIL,
(ECF No. 10)
Defendant.

PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT BY APRIL 3, 2012

15
16

/

17
Plaintiff Brian Turner (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and
18
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has
19
consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.)
20
The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on January 31, 2012, and found that it
21
failed to state a cognizable claim, but gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended
22
complaint on or before March 5, 2012. (ECF No. 10.) March 5, 2012, has passed without
23
Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or a request for an extension of time to do so.
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 January 31, 2012, Order. He will be given

10

one more opportunity, until April 3, 2012, and no later, to file an amended complaint or

11

show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order

12

and failure to state a claim. Failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this

13

action.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:
ci4d6

March 19, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-