Magee v. Flores et al

Filing 27

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/14/12. Amended Complaint due within fourteen days. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-1239–AWI-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.
PETER FLORES, et al.,

13
Defendants.

(ECF No. 25)

14
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

15
/
16
17
18

Plaintiff Ruchell Cinque Magee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on May 29, 2012, and found that it failed

20

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

21

on or before July 2, 2012. (ECF No. 25.) July 2, 2012, has passed without Plaintiff having

22

filed an amended complaint or a request for an extension of time to do so.1

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

1

Plaintiff has filed objections to the Court’s screening order but has failed to comply with the
Court’s order to file an amended Complaint. (ECF No. 26.)

-1-

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 adequately responded to the Court’s May 29, 2012, Order. He will

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:
ci4d6

July 14, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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