Castrence v. Doe et al

Filing 14

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
REDENTOR C. CASTRENCE,

1:12-cv-2075-MJS (PC)

9
Plaintiff,

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

10
v.
11
JOHN DOE, et al.,
12

(ECF No. 8)
Defendants.

13

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE
________________________________/

14
Plaintiff Redentor C. Castrence (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro
15
se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to
16
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.)
17
On February 13, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a civil in forma
18

pauperis application or pay the regular filing fee. (ECF No. 8.)1 Plaintiff was to respond to

19
this order by March 18, 2013. (Id.) March 18, 2013, has passed without Plaintiff having
20
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid a filing fee, or requested an
21
extension of time in which to respond to the order.
22
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
23
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and
24
all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent
25
26
27
28

1

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
amount.

-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).

10

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s February 13, 2013, order. He will be given

11

one more opportunity, from fourteen (14) days of entry of this order, and no later, to file

12

an application to proceed in forma pauperis, submit the full filing fee, or show cause as to

13

why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. Failure to

14

meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:
ci4d6

July 8, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-