Adams v. Yates et al

Filing 26

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Comply With Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/17/2011. Amended Complaint or Show Cause Response Due Within. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RICKEY ADAMS,

10

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-0671-AWI-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,

11
12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER

v.
J. YATES, et al.,

13

(ECF No. 20)
Defendants.

14

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS

15

/

16
Plaintiff Rickey Adams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
17
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
On September 2, 2011, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to set
19
a schedule for discovery and pre-trial motions. (ECF No. 20.) In the same Order, the
20
Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to File an Amended Complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff was to file
21
his Amended Complaint by October 3, 2011. (Id.) This deadline has passed. Plaintiff has
22
not filed an Amended Complaint or a request for an extension of time within which to do
23
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 September 2, 2011 Order. The October

10

3, 2011 deadline to respond has expired.. (Order, ECF No. 20.) Accordingly, within no

11

more than thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall file an Amended

12

Complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

13

a Court order and failure to state a claim. Failure to meet this deadline will result in

14

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:
ci4d6

November 17, 2011

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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