Bobier v. Unknown

Filing 19

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case should not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Court Order; Fourteen (14) Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/11/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JON C. BOBIER,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00845-AWI-MJS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER

UNKNOWN,
(ECF No. 18)
Defendant.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
Plaintiff Jon C. Bobier, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
18
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 3, 2012. (ECF No.
19
1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 13.)
20

On October 29, 2013, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s unsigned and

21
uncaptioned Complaint and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty
22
days. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff did not file an amended pleading before the November 29,
23
2013 deadline. On December 13, 2013, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to
24
show cause why his case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 16.) Thereafter Plaintiff
25
filed a request for an extension of time (ECF No. 17) and, on January 3, 2014, the Court
26
granted him an additional thirty days to amend (ECF No. 18). That extended deadline
27
has now passed without Plaintiff filing an amended complaint.
28
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order requiring that he file an amended

13
14

complaint by not later than February 3, 2014.

15

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

16

1.

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

17

cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s

18

January 3, 2014 Order, or file an amended complaint; and

19
20

2.

be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

21
22

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

3.

There shall be no further extensions of time beyond those provided

here.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 11, 2014

/s/

26

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2