Porter-Bey v. Lappin et al

Filing 19

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With Court Order and Failure to State a Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/13/2012. Show Cause Response or Amended Complaint due by 4/27/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JEROME A PORTER-BEY,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-891–LJO-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM

v.
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, et al.,

13

(ECF No. 17)
Defendants.

14

PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT BY APRIL 27, 2012

15
/
16
17

Plaintiff Jerome A. Porter-Bey (“Plaintiff”), a former federal prisoner proceeding pro

18

se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action on May 3, 2010, pursuant to Bivens v. Six

19

Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which

20

provides a remedy for the violation of civil rights by federal actors.

21

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on February 28, 2012, and found that it

22

failed to state a cognizable claim, but gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended

23

complaint on or before April 2, 2012. (ECF No. 17.) April 2, 2012, has passed without

24

Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or a request for an extension of time to do so.

25

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

26

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

27

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

28

power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose
-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 February 28, 2012, Order. He will be

10

given one more opportunity, until April 27, 2012, and no later, to file an amended

11

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

12

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

13

dismissal of this action.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:
ci4d6

April 13, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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