Leonel Guzman v. Dickinson et al

Filing 5

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/8/2012. Endorsed Complaint Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LEONEL GUZMAN,

11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-713–MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER

v.
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, et al.

(ECF No. 2)
14

Defendants.
ENDORSED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

15
16
/
17
18
19

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

20

Jorge Ornelas, Mario Gonzales, Anthony Bray, Vincent Alvarez, and Leonel

21

Guzman, all state prisoners, initiated a joint civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22

(Ornelas v. Dickinson, E.D. Cal. 12-cv-499). On May 3, 2012, the Court severed these

23

individuals’ claims, and directed the Clerk of Court to open new separate civil actions for

24

Gonzales, Bray, Alvarez, and Plaintiff. (ECF No. 2.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an

25

endorsed (i.e., signed by him) copy of the April 6, 2012 Complaint with the Court. (Id.)

26

Plaintiff was to file his endorsed complaint on or before June 4, 2012. (Id.) June 4, 2012,

27

has passed without Plaintiff having filed an endorsed copy of the Complaint or a request

28

for an extension of time to do so.
-1-

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

13

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s May 3, 2012, Order. He will be given one

14

more opportunity, from fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order, and no later, to file an

15

endorsed copy of the Complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed for

16

failure to comply with a Court order. Failure to meet this deadline will result in

17

dismissal of this action.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:
ci4d6

August 8, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-