Smith v. Rios Jr., et al

Filing 39

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With Court Order 37 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/21/2012. Plaintff Must File Amended Complaint by February 27, 2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

NATHAN SMITH,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-1554–AWI-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER

v.
H.A. RIOS, JR, et al.

13

(ECF No. 37)
Defendants.

14

PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT BY FEBRUARY 27, 2012

15

/

16
Plaintiff Nathan Smith (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis, filed this civil action on August 9, 2010, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
18
Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides
19
a remedy for the violation of civil rights by federal actors.
20
The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on December 2, 2011, found that it failed
21
to state a cognizable claim, and gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF
22
No. 37.) Plaintiff was to file his amended complaint by January 3, 2012. (Id.) The January
23
3, 2012 deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or a request
24
for an extension.
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
-1-

1

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

2

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

3

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s

4

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local

5

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

6

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

7

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

8

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of

9

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

10

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s December 2, 2011 Order, even though the

11

January 4, 2012 deadline contained in the Order has passed. (ECF No. 37.) Accordingly,

12

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than February 27, 2012, or show cause

13

as to why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order and

14

failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is hereby on notice that failure to meet this deadline will

15

result in dismissal of this action.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:
ci4d6

January 21, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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