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)

Download PDF
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-

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?