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-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?