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)

Download PDF
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-

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?