Rodriguez v. CDCR Departmental Review Board et al

Filing 26

FINAL ORDER To SHOW CAUSE Why The Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Plaintiff's Failure To Comply With The Court's Order (Doc. 17 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/31/82013. Show Cause Response due by 8/16/2013. (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)
FINAL 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. Rodrigues (“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. Plaintiff consented to proceed before

20

the Magistrate Judge on May 16, 2012. (Doc. 5). On April 15, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to

21

notify the Court whether he wished to proceed on his cognizable claims or to file a first amended

22

complaint. (Doc. 17).

23

complaint, (Doc. 20, 23), Plaintiff has failed to amend his complaint or otherwise respond to the

24

Court’s order.

Despite Plaintiff’s multiple extensions of time to file his first amended

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

Plaintiff is advised that this will be the Court’s FINAL order for Plaintiff to file an amended

9

complaint or notify the Court whether he wishes to proceed on his cognizable claims. Failure to

10

comply with this Order will result in an immediate dismissal of this matter. Plaintiff is advised that

11

the Court will not grant any further extensions of time to comply with the Court’s order.

12

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint or notify the Court whether

13

he wishes to proceed on his cognizable claims within 14 days of service of this order. His failure to

14

comply will result in an order dismissing this without further notice.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 31, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2