Hall v. Cate et al

Filing 16

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE as to Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Comply With a Court Order 8 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 4/6/2011. Response to Order to Show Cause Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

(PC) Hall v. Cate et al

Doc. 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 / 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Tony Hall ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 7, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a signed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within thirty days. More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court's order. Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." Further, the failure of Plaintiff to prosecute this action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order. /// 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

TONY HALL, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01601-SMS PC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER (ECF No. 8) Defendants. RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 April 6, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2