Wooten v. California Dept. of Corrections et al

Filing 14

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Action Should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/19/13. 14-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS, )
)
)
et. al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
GREGORY E. WOOTEN,

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00570 – LJO – JLT (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER
(Doc. 13).

18

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court

19

dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended complaint on August 26, 2013, but granted Plaintiff leave to file

20

a third amended complaint within 21 days. (Doc. 13). More than 21 days have passed, and Plaintiff

21

has failed to file a third amended complaint.

22

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

27
28
1

1

Plaintiff is advised that this will be the Court’s FINAL order for Plaintiff to file a third

2

amended complaint within 14 days of the date of service of this Order. Failure to do so will result

3

in an immediate finding and recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 19, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2