Cartwright v. Gipson

Filing 23

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/4/2014. Show Cause Response due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

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-00463 AWI-MJS HC
HENRY CARTWRIGHT,

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

12
13
14

v.
CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

Respondent.

15
16
17
18

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

19

On November 21, 2013, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to stay. (ECF No.

20

20.) On August 7, 2014, the Court issued an order to show cause why the stay should

21

not be vacated. (ECF No. 22.) Petitioner was required to file a response to the order to

22

show cause within fourteen (14) days of service of the order. Petitioner was warned that

23

failure to comply with the order may result in the dismissal of his petition pursuant to

24

Local Rule 110.

25
26

Over fourteen days have passed without Petitioner having filed a response to the
order to show cause.

27

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

28

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
1

1

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

2

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may

3

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.

4

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based

5

on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to

6

comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)

7

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

Petitioner has not responded to the Court’s August 7, 2014 order. The deadline

12

for filing a response to the order to show cause has passed. (ECF No. 22.)

13

Nevertheless, Petitioner shall be given one final opportunity to file, no later than thirty

14

days from the date of service of this order, a response to the order to show cause why

15

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

16

respond by this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 4, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2