Valles v. Aguilar et al

Filing 12

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice for Failure to Comply With Court Order 6 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/29/13. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK VALLES,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00555-MJS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH COURT ORDER

MARK AGUILAR, et al.,
(ECF No. 6)
Defendants.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
Plaintiff Frank Valles, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
18
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2013.
19
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.)
20

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it on July 1, 2013 for

21
failure to state a claim, but gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by not later
22
than August 1, 2013. (ECF No. 6.) The deadline has passed without Plaintiff filing an
23
amended complaint or requesting an extension of time to do so.
24

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

25
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
26
27

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the
inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may

28
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9
10

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order requiring that he file an amended
complaint by not later than August 1, 2013.

11

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

12

1.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show

13

cause as to why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply

14

with the Court’s July 1, 2013 Order, or file an amended complaint; and

15

2.

If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, this action will

16

be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute, subject

17

to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658

18

F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 29, 2013

/s/

22

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:

23

Michael J. Seng

ci4d6

24
25
26
27
28
2