Barnhardt v. Cate et al

Filing 9

ORDER To SHOW CAUSE For Failure To Comply The Court's June 15, 2011 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. Show Cause Response due by 8/25/2011.(Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MARCUS J. BARNHARDT, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01351-LJO-GBC (PC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY THE COURT’S JUNE 15, 2011 SCREENING ORDER v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW CAUSE OR FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BY AUGUST 25, 2011 Defendants. / 14 15 ORDER 16 Plaintiff Marcus J. Barnhardt is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 15, 2011, the 18 Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that it failed to state any claims upon which 19 relief could be granted. (ECF No. 8.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint and 20 ordered him to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff was warned that 21 failure to comply with the Court’s Order may result in dismissal of this action for failure to 22 state a claim upon 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 15, 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

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?