Caseres v. Terhune et al

Filing 11

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE for Failure to Comply the Court's June 10, 2011 10 Screening Order; Plaintiff Must SHOW CAUSE or FILE an AMENDED COMPLAINT by August 25, 2011 signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 7/21/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

PAUL ANGELO CASERES,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01239-OWW-GBC (PC)

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY THE COURT’S JUNE 10,
2011 SCREENING ORDER

11
12
13

v.
C. A. TERHUNE, et al.,

PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW CAUSE OR FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BY AUGUST
25, 2011

Defendants.
/

14
ORDER

15
16

Plaintiff Paul Angelo Caseres is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

17

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 10, 2011, the Court screened

18

Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that it failed to state any claims upon which relief could be

19

granted. (ECF No. 10.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint and ordered him to file

20

an amended complaint within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply

21

with the Court’s Order may result in dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim upon

22

which relief could be granted. (Id.)

23

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
1

1

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

2

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

3

1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

4

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the

10
11

Court’s June 10, 2011 Screening Order and more than thirty days have passed.

12

Accordingly, not later than August 25, 2011, Plaintiff shall either file an amended complaint

13

or show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed.

14

Plaintiff is hereby on notice that failure to comply with this Order will result in

15

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim upon which relief

16

could be granted.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:
1j0bbc

July 21, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2