Humple v. Rooda et al

Filing 12

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Obey Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 8/8/2011. Show Cause Response due by 9/12/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JEFFREY A. HUMPLE,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00843-GBC (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER

v.
K. ROODA, et al.,
Defendants.

RESPONSE DUE BY SEPTEMBER 12,
/ 2011

14
ORDER

15
16

Plaintiff Jeffrey A. Humple is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a pleading

18

entitled “Request to Dismiss 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Order for Personal Property to be

19

Transferred to Appellant’s New Institution.” (ECF No. 10.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s

20

request for injunctive relief as to his property request, and the Court requested that Plaintiff

21

clarify his dismissal request. (ECF No. 11.) The Court gave Plaintiff until August 1, 2011

22

to clarify his request to dismiss. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise

23

responded to the Court’s Order.

24

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

25

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

26

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

27

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose

28

sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing

1

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

2

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

3

comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)

4

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE not later that

12

September 12, 2011, why the above-captioned action should not be dismissed for failure

13

to obey a Court Order. Plaintiff is hereby on notice that failure to respond to this Order by

14

September 12, 2011 will result in dismissal of this action.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated:
1j0bbc

August 8, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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