Herrera v. Beregovskays et al

Filing 8

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice for Failure to Comply With Court Order 6 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/20/13. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint - blank form)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
ROBERTO HERRERA,

CASE No. 1:12-cv-01912-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. 6)

13
14

O. BEREGOVSKAYS, et al.,

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18

Plaintiff Roberto Herrera, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on November 26, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

20

1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No.

21

4.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it on December 21, 2012 for

22

failure to state a claim, but gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by not later

23

than January 24, 2013. (ECF No. 6.)

24
25
26

The January 24, 2013 deadline has passed without Plaintiff having filed an
amended complaint or requesting an extension of time to do so.
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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based

4

on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to

5

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

6

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

7

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

8

amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

9

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, Plaintiff not having responded to the Court’s Order, it is

10
11

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

12

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

13

show cause why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice for

14

failure to comply with the Court’s December 21, 2012 Order, or file an

15

amended complaint; and
2.

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20
21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:
ci4d6

February 20, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2