Mwasi v. Corcoran State Prison

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/25/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KING MWASI,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00695 – JLT (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER
(Doc. 9).

17
18

Plaintiff King Mwasi (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 30, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff

20

to file a complaint in this matter. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff was given 21 days from the date of service of the

21

order to comply with the May 3, 2013 order. Id. More than 21 days have passed and Plaintiff has

22

failed to file a complaint.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

28
1

1

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

2

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

3

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

4

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

5

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

6

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of

8

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order.

9

Alternatively, within this same 14-day period, he must file his complaint. Plaintiff is advised that this

10

will be the Court’s FINAL order for Plaintiff to file his complaint. Should Plaintiff fail to comply

11

with this order, the Court will issue findings and recommendations that this matter be dismissed.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 25, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2