Berrios v. Bondoc et al
Filing
21
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/23/14. 14-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MARVIN BERRIOS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
J. BONDOC, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01435-LJO-MJS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER
(ECF NO. 19)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
17
18
Plaintiff Marvin Berrios, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
19
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 26, 2011. (ECF No.
20
1.)
21
against Defendant J. Bondoc for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in
22
violation of the Eighth amendment. (ECF No. 11.)
23
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10)
On April 7, 2014, the Second Scheduling Order was issued requiring the parties
24
to file pretrial statements.
25
statement on or before June 10, 2014. (Id.) The deadline has passed without Plaintiff
26
filing a statement or requesting an extension of time to do so.
(ECF No. 19.)
27
28
1
Plaintiff was ordered to serve a pretrial
1
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
2
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
3
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the
4
inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may
5
impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal [of a case].” Thompson v.
6
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based
7
on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to
8
comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)
9
(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-
10
61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of
11
complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for
12
lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
13
14
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order requiring that he file a pretrial
statement by not later than June 10, 2014.
15
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
16
1.
Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show
17
cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s
18
April 7, 2014, Order, or file a pretrial statement; and
19
20
2.
If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file a pretrial statement, this action may be
dismissed for failure to obey a court order.
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 23, 2014
/s/
24
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?