De Cases v. The State Department of Mental Health, et al.

Filing 7

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 5/21/2012. Plaintiff Must Show Cause by June 5, 2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ROGRIGO DE CASES,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-1813–MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER

v.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL
HEALTH, et al.,
(ECF No. 6)

13
14

PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW CAUSE BY JUNE
5, 2012

Defendants.

15
16

/

17
Plaintiff Rogrigo De Cases (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in
18
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has
19
consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.)
20
On March 28, 2012, the Court issued an Order, directing Plaintiff to produce a copy
21
of any final order and judgment issued in the case In re Rodrigo De Casas,
22
10CRWR680131, or if none was available, to submit a short description regarding the
23
status of the state action. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was given thirty days in which to comply
24
with this order. (Id.) Thirty days have passed without Plaintiff complying with or otherwise
25
responding to the Court’s Order.
26
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
27
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and
28
-1-

1

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

2

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

3

sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing

4

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s

5

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local

6

rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

7

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

8

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

9

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of

10

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

11

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s March 28, 2012, Order. He will be given

12

one more opportunity, until June 5, 2012, and no later, to produce a copy of any final

13

order and judgment issued in the case In re Rodrigo De Casas, 10CRWR680131, or if

14

none is available, to submit a short description regarding the status of the state action. In

15

the alternative, Plaintiff may show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure

16

to comply with a Court order. Failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal of

17

this action.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:
ci4d6

May 21, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-