Castrence v. Doe et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With a Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/8/2013. Show Cause Response Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
REDENTOR C. CASTRENCE,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
JOHN DOE, et al.,
(ECF No. 8)
FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Redentor C. Castrence (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro
se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.)
On February 13, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a civil in forma
pauperis application or pay the regular filing fee. (ECF No. 8.)1 Plaintiff was to respond to
this order by March 18, 2013. (Id.) March 18, 2013, has passed without Plaintiff having
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid a filing fee, or requested an
extension of time in which to respond to the order.
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and
all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent
W hen the Court originally ordered Plaintiff to either file a regular civil in forma pauperis
application or pay the regular filing fee, the regular filing fee was $350.00. Plaintiff should note that the
regular filing fee has since been raised to $400 and if he elects to use this option he will have to pay this
power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose
sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing
Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s
failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local
rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of
prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s February 13, 2013, order. He will be given
one more opportunity, from fourteen (14) days of entry of this order, and no later, to file
an application to proceed in forma pauperis, submit the full filing fee, or show cause as to
why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. Failure to
meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 8, 2013
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?