Vaught v. Allison et al

Filing 12

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE for Failure to Comply With the Court's May 11, 2011, Screening Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 6/20/2011. Plaintiff must show cause OR file an amended complaint by 8/1/2011. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ELBERT LEE VAUGHT, IV,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00067-GBC (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S MAY
11, 2011 SCREENING ORDER

v.
KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

(ECF No. 11)

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW CAUSE OR FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BY AUGUST
1, 2011

14
/
15
16

ORDER

17

Plaintiff Elbert Lee Vaught, IV is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 11, 2011, the

19

Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and found that it failed to state any

20

claims upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 11.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s

21

Complaint and ordered him to file a second amended complaint within thirty days. (Id.)

22

Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s Order may result in dismissal

23

of this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Id.)

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

11

Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint or otherwise responded to the

12

Court’s May 11, 2011 Screening Order and well in excess of thirty days have passed.

13

Accordingly, not later than August 1, 2011, Plaintiff shall either file a second amended

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

could be granted.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated:
1j0bbc

June 20, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2