Woodis v. Olive et al

Filing 11

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With Court Order and Failure to State a Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/18/2013. Amended Complaint or Show Cause Response due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DENO EUGENE WOODIS,

10
11
12

CASE No. 1:12-cv-01091-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.
PAM OLIVE, et al.,

13
Defendants.

(ECF No. 10)

14
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

15
/
16
17

Plaintiff Deno Eugene Woodis (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is civilly committed to

19

Coalinga State Hospital.

20

The Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on February 1, 2013, and

21

found that it failed to state a cognizable claim, but gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an

22

amended complaint on or before March 5, 2013. (ECF Nos. 9 & 10.) March 5, 2013, has

23

passed without Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or a request for an extension

24

of time to do so.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose
-1-

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

9

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s February 1, 2013, order. He will be given

10

one more opportunity, within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order, and no

11

later, to file an amended complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed

12

for failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a claim. Failure to meet this

13

deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:
ci4d6

March 18, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-