Machart v. Arvin Community Health Center et al

Filing 8

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY COURT ORDER. PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT BY 4/20/2012, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 03/22/2012. (Yu, L)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

KEITH MACHART,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

CASE NO.

1:11-cv-00341-AWI-MJS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER

v.

ARVIN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER;
CLINICA SIERRA VISTA; and AURORA T. PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED
REIMER-COLE, P.A.
COMPLAINT BY APRIL 20, 2012
Defendants.
/

17
18

Plaintiff Keith Machart (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this action based on
19
medical malpractice.
20
The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on January 23, 2012, found that it lacked
21
jurisdiction, and gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on or before February
22
27, 2012. (ECF No. 7.) February 27, 2012 has passed without Plaintiff having filed an
23
amended complaint or a request for an extension.
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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

9

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s January 23, 2012 Order. The February 27,

10

2012 deadline in the Order has passed. (ECF No. 12.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff shall be

11

given one final opportunity to file, no later than April 20, 2012, a second amended

12

complaint or show cause by that date why his case should not be dismissed for failure to

13

comply with a Court order and for lack of jurisdiction. This deadline will result in dismissal

14

of this action.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:
92b0h

March 22, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-