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