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)

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