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)

Download PDF
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-

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?