Fierro v. CCA California City et al

Filing 5

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the Action Should not be DISMISSED for Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 02/22/2013. Show Cause Response = (21) Day Deadline. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VICTOR A. FIERRO,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
CCA CALIFORNIA CITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00076 - JLT (PC)
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER

Victor A. Fierro (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil action

18

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

19

(1971). On January 23, 2013, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and

20

determined the information provided by Plaintiff was insufficient to determine it satisfies the

21

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 3). Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either (1) pay

22

the $350 filing fee for the action, or (2) file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a

23

certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six-month period preceding the filing of his

24

complaint. (Doc. 3 at 2). Although Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the order would

25

result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed, he failed to respond to the Court’s order.

26

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

27

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

28

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have
1

1

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

2

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

3

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

4

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

5

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

6

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

7

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

8

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

9

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one days of the date of

10

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s

11

order. In the alternative, within the same twenty-one day period, Plaintiff may pay the filing fee of

12

$350.00 or file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as instructed in the Court’s order

13

dated January 23, 2013.

14
15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 22, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2