Lopez v. Shiesha et al

Filing 23

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Case should not be Dismissed without Prejudice for Failure to Comply with Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 09/17/2013. Show Cause Response due by 10/7/2013. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CLAY EDWARD LOPEZ, CASE No. 1:12-cv-00076-MJS (PC) 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER Plaintiff, 11 12 v. (ECF No. 22) 13 14 S. SHIESHA, et al., FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 18 Plaintiff Clay Edward Lopez is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed January 17, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 20 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff consented to extend magistrate judge jurisdiction to 21 all matters and purposes. (Consent to Magistrate, ECF No. 5.) 22 On March 28, 2013, the Court instructed Plaintiff to complete and submit documents 23 necessary for service of process by not later than May, 2, 2013. (ECF No. 22.) That 24 deadline has passed without Plaintiff filing the service documents or requesting an 25 extension of time to do so. 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 all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent 1 1 power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose 2 sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal [of a case].” Thompson v. Housing 3 Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 4 failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 5 rules. See e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for 6 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 7 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 8 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 9 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order requiring that he file documents 10 11 necessary to execute service. 12 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 13 1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show 14 cause as to why his case should not be dismissed without prejudice for 15 failure to comply with the Court’s March 28, 2013 Order, or file the service 16 documents; and 2. 17 If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file the requested documents, this action 18 shall be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and 19 failure to prosecute. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: ci4d6 September 17, 2013 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 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?