Mwasi v. Corcoran State Prison

Filing 50

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 7/14/15. Show Cause Response Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No. 1:13-cv-00695-JLT (PC)
KING MWASI,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
CORCORAN STATE PRISON,
Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT’S ORDER
(Doc. 49)
30-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Plaintiff, King Mwasi, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 27, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion

19

and granted him leave to file a third amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff's

20

third amended complaint was due on or before June 26, 2015. Id. Despite lapse of more than the

21

allowed time, Plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint.

22

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

23

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

24

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

25

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a

26

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

27

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,

28

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to
1

1

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

2

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

3

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

4

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

5

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within thirty (30) days of the date of

7

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the

8

Court’s order.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 14, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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