Toth v. Schwarzenegger, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed For Failure to Comply With 12 Court Order and Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/30/12. Amended Complaint due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

R.C. TOTH,

10
11
12

CASE No. 1:11-cv-0247-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM

v.
GOVERNOR ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

13

(ECF No. 12)
Defendants.

14

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

15
/
16
17

Plaintiff R.C. Toth (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to

19

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 8.)

20

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on August 31, 2012, and found that it failed

21

to state a cognizable claim, but gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint

22

on or before October 3, 2012. (ECF No. 12.) October 3, 2012, has passed without Plaintiff

23

having filed an amended complaint or a request for an extension of time to do so.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

8

Plaintiff has not adequately responded to the Court’s August 31, 2012, Order. He

9

will be given one more opportunity, from fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order, and no

10

later, to file an amended complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed

11

for failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a claim. Failure to meet this

12

deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:
ci4d6

October 30, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-