Dews v. County of Kern et al

Filing 15

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. 13 ), Amended Complaint Due Within Fourteen Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/13/2012. Show Cause Response and Amended Complaint due by 10/1/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CLARENCE LEON DEWS,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-0245-AWI-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.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

13
Defendants.

(ECF No. 13)

14
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

15
/
16
17
18

Plaintiff Clarence Leon Dews (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on July 16, 2012, and found that it failed

20

to state a cognizable claim but gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint

21

on or before August 16, 2012. (ECF No. 13.) August 16, 2012, has passed without

22

Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or a request for an extension of time to do so.

23

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

24

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s
-1-

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

7

Plaintiff has not adequately responded to the Court’s July 16, 2012, Order. He will

8

be given one more opportunity, up to fourteen (14) days after entry of this Order and no

9

later to file an amended complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed

10

for failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a claim. Failure to meet this

11

deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:
ci4d6

September 13, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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