Fritcher v. Joseph et al

Filing 4

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/25/2012. Show Cause Response due by 2/8/2012. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JULIE FRITCHER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
MELVIN JOSEPH, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No.: 1:11-cv-02072 AWI JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
AND OBEY THE COURT’S ORDER

17

Julie Fritcher (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on December 15, 2011 (Doc. 1). Because

18

Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court was required to screen the complaint for

19

cognizable claims. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). On December 28, 2011, the Court found Plaintiff

20

failed to show the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, and dismissed the

21

complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 3).

22

Plaintiff was granted twenty-one days from the date of service, or until January 18, 2012, to

23

amend her complaint. (Doc. 3 at 6). To date, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint, or

24

otherwise respond to the Court’s order, in spite of the fact that Plaintiff was “cautioned that failure

25

to file an amended complaint in accordance with [the] order will result in a recommendation

26

that this action be dismissed.” (Id. at 6) (emphasis in original).

27
28

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of
1

1

any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have

2

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

3

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

4

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

5

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Malone v.

6

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

7

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute

8

and to comply with local rules).

9

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of

10

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for her failure prosecute or obey the Court’s

11

Order, or in the alternative, to file her First Amended Complaint addressing the matter of the Court’s

12

jurisdiction.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: January 25, 2012
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2