Rodriguez v. CDCR Departmental Review Board et al

Filing 19

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/10/13. 14-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATIONS et al.,
Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00757 – JLT (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER
(Doc. 17).

18

Plaintiff Luis V. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As is required, the Court screened

20

Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) on April 15, 2015. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff was granted 21 days to notify the

21

Court of his willingness to proceed on his cognizable claims or to file a first amended complaint. Id.

22

More than 21 days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s April 15, 2013,

23

order.

24

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a

25

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

26

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

27

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

28

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
1

1

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

2

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

3

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

4

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

5

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

6

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
ORDER

7
8

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

9

1.

Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in

10

writing why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order. In the

11

alternative, within this same 14-day period, Plaintiff may notify the Court that he wishes to proceed

12

on his cognizable claims or file an amended complaint.

13

Failure to comply with this order SHALL result in dismissal of this case.

14
15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 10, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2