Koufos v. Manasrah et al

Filing 14

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order 13 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/3/13: Show Cause Response due within 14 days of the date of service of this Order. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICHOLAS KOUFOS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

A. MANASRAH,

15
16

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-02412 -AWI– JLT (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER
(Doc. 13).

17

Plaintiff Nicholas Koufos (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 26, 2013, the Court issued

19

an order requiring Plaintiff to either notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on his cognizable

20

claims or file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff was granted 30 days from the date of

21

service, or until April 25, 2013, to comply with the March 26, 2013, order. Id. More than 30 days

22

have passed but Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on his cognizable

23

claims, file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order.

24

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a

25

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

26

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

27

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

28
1

1

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

2

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

3

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

4

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

5

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

6

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

7

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

8

Plaintiff is advised that this will be the Court’s FINAL order for Plaintiff to notify the Court

9

whether he wishes to proceed on his cognizable claims, file a second amended complaint, or otherwise

10

respond to the March 26, 2013, order. Should Plaintiff fail to comply with this Order, the Court will

11

issue findings and recommendations that this matter be dismissed.

12

ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of this Order why the action should

13

not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order. In the alternative, Plaintiff may notify

14

the Court that he wishes to proceed on his cognizable claims or file a second amended complaint.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 3, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2