Scott v. McAfee

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With a Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/27/13. Response Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

MICHAEL SCOTT,

10
11
12

CASE No. 1:13-cv-0639-AWI-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,

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

v.
McAFEE,

(ECF No. 8)
13
Defendant.

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS

14
15
/
16
17
18

Plaintiff Michael Scott (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

The Court struck Plaintiff’s unsigned Complaint on May 8, 2013, because pursuant

20

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) and Local Rule 131(b), unsigned documents cannot be considered

21

by the Court. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was given thirty days, until June 7, 2013, to file a

22

signed complaint. (Id.) June 7, 2013, has passed without Plaintiff having filed a signed

23

complaint or a request of an extension of time in which 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 and

26

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

27

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

28

sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing
-1-

1

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s

2

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local

3

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

4

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

5

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

6

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

7

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

8

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s May 8, 2013, order. He will be given one

9

more opportunity, from fourteen (14) days of entry of this order, and no later, to file an

10

signed complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply

11

with a court order. Failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:
ci4d6

June 27, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-