Rodriguez v. CDCR Departmental Review Board et al

Filing 21

ORDER To SHOW CAUSE Why The Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Plaintiff's Failure To Comply With The Court's Order (Doc. 20 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/19/2013. Show Cause Response due by 7/5/2013. (Fahrney, E)

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

v.

14

CDCR DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW

15

BOARD, et al.,

16

Defendant.

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. 20).

18

Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 14, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional

20

30 days from the date of service of the Order to amend his complaint or notify the Court whether he

21

wished to proceed on his cognizable claims. (Doc. 20). The Court specifically advised Plaintiff that

22

this was his “only extension of time to amend his complaint.” Id. at 2 (emphasis in the original).

23

More than 30 days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to amend his complaint or otherwise respond to

24

the Court’s order.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of

9

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

10

alternative, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint or notify the court whether he wishes to proceed

11

on his cognizable claims.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 19, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2