Adams v. Yates et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-0671-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
J. YATES, et al.,
(ECF No. 20)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
Plaintiff Rickey Adams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 2, 2011, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to set
a schedule for discovery and pre-trial motions. (ECF No. 20.) In the same Order, the
Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to File an Amended Complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff was to file
his Amended Complaint by October 3, 2011. (Id.) This deadline has passed. Plaintiff has
not filed an Amended Complaint or a request for an extension of time within which to do
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and
all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent
power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose
sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing
Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s
failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local
rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of
prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s September 2, 2011 Order. The October
3, 2011 deadline to respond has expired.. (Order, ECF No. 20.) Accordingly, within no
more than thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall file an Amended
Complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with
a Court order and failure to state a claim. Failure to meet this deadline will result in
dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 17, 2011
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?