Alfred v. Vazquez

Filing 18

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Case Should not be Dismissed with Prejudice for Failure to Comply with Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 07/10/2013. Show Cause Response due by 7/29/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
CHRISTOPHER ALFRED,

CASE No. 1:12-cv-01493-MJS (PC)

10
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH COURT ORDER

Plaintiff,

11
12
v.

(ECF No. 17)

13
14

P.L. VAZQUEZ,

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

15
Defendant.
16
/
17
18

Plaintiff Christopher Alfred is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action filed September 13, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

(Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff consented to extend magistrate judge jurisdiction to all

21

matters and purposes. (Consent to Magistrate, ECF No. 5.)

22

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and dismissed it on May

23

30, 2013 for failure to state a claim, but gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint

24

by not later than June 30, 2013. (ECF No. 17.) The deadline has passed without Plaintiff

25

filing an amended complaint or requesting an extension of time to do so.

26

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

27

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

28

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order requiring that he file an amended

10
11

complaint by not later than June 30, 2013.

12

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

13

1.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show

14

cause as to why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure

15

to comply with the Court’s May 30, 2013 Order, or file an amended

16

complaint; and
2.

17

If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, this action shall

18

be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure to

19

prosecute, subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

20

1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:
ci4d6

July 10, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2