Grandison v. M. Stainer et al

Filing 19

ORDER To SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure To Comply With Court Order And Failure To State A Claim (ECF No. 17 ), Fourteen (14) Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/3/2012. Show Cause Response due by 7/19/2012.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JEFFERY SEBASTIAN GRANDISON,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:11-CV-01506-LJO-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.

13
14

M. STAINER, et al.,
(ECF No. 17)
Defendants.

15

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
/

16
17
18
19

On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff Jeffrey Sebastian Grandison, a state prisoner

20
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42
21
22

U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No.4.) Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed by the Court on

23 May 25, 2012 for failure to state a claim; he was given leave to file an amended pleading
24 not later than June 25, 2012. (Order Dismiss., ECF No. 17.) The June 25th deadline has
25 passed without Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or a request for an extension
26

of time to do so.

27
-1-

1
2
3

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

4
5
6

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may
impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.

7 Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based
8 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to
9 comply with local rules. See e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)
10

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

11
12
13

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

14 (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
15

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s May 25, 2012 Order. The Court will give

16 him fourteen (14) days following service of this order to show cause why his case should
17

not be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court Order and failure to state a claim.

18
Failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.
19
20
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated:
23

ci4d6

July 3, 2012

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
-2-