Mathis v. Chokatos et al

Filing 21

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Faiure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/18/13. Fourteen Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

BENNIE MATHIS,

10
11
12

CASE No. 1:12-cv-0329-LJO-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.
J. CHOKATOS, M.D., et al.,

13

(ECF No. 18)
Defendants.

14

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

15
/
16
17
18

Plaintiff Bennie Mathis (“Plaintiff”) is a 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 First Amended Complaint on December 21, 2012,

20

and found that it failed to state a cognizable claim, but gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file

21

an amended complaint on or before January 22, 2013. (ECF Nos. 13 & 18.) January 22,

22

2013, has passed without Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or a request for an

23

extension of time to do so.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing
-1-

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

8

Plaintiff has not adequately responded to the Court’s December 21, 2013, order.

9

He will be given one more opportunity, within fourteen (14) days of entry of this order, and

10

no later, to file an amended complaint or show cause why his case should not be

11

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

12

meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:
ci4d6

March 18, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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