Carter v. City Of Fresno

Filing 15

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Court Order; CAUSE to be Shown or Amended Complaint to be Filed by November 25, 2013, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/28/13. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

1:13-cv-00290 AWI MJS HC
LEWIS CARTER, JR.,

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

12
13
14
15

v.
CITY OF FRESNO,

CAUSE TO BE SHOWN OR AMENDED
COMPLAINT
TO
BE
FILED
BY
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Lewis Carter, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this action pursuant to

18

title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his First and Fourth through Fourteenth

19

Amendment rights under the United States Constitution, and violation of article I,

20

sections 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14 and 21 of the California Constitution.

21

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 5, 2013, and the

22

Court granted the motion on July 16, 2013. (ECF Nos. 6, 13.) The Court gave Plaintiff

23

leave to file an amended complaint on or before August 16, 2013. (ECF No. 13.)

24
25

August 16, 2013 has passed without Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint
or a request for an extension.

26

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, 1260-

7

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

8

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

9

lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

10

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s July 16, 2013 Order. The August 16,

11

2013 deadline in the Order has passed. (ECF No. 13.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff shall be

12

given one final opportunity to file, no later than November 25, 2013, an amended

13

complaint or show cause by that date why his case should not be dismissed for failure to

14

comply with a court order and for lack of jurisdiction. Failure to respond by this deadline

15

will result in dismissal of this action.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

19

October 28, 2013

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:

20

Michael J. Seng

ci4d6

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2