Bobier v. Unknown
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JON C. BOBIER,
CASE No. 1:13-cv-00845-AWI-MJS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
(ECF No. 18)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Jon C. Bobier, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 3, 2012. (ECF No.
1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 13.)
On October 29, 2013, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s unsigned and
uncaptioned Complaint and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty
days. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff did not file an amended pleading before the November 29,
2013 deadline. On December 13, 2013, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to
show cause why his case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 16.) Thereafter Plaintiff
filed a request for an extension of time (ECF No. 17) and, on January 3, 2014, the Court
granted him an additional thirty days to amend (ECF No. 18). That extended deadline
has now passed without Plaintiff filing an amended complaint.
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the
inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may
impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal [of a case].” Thompson v.
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based
on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to
comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)
(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-
61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of
complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for
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
complaint by not later than February 3, 2014.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show
cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s
January 3, 2014 Order, or file an amended complaint; and
be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.
If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, this action will
There shall be no further extensions of time beyond those provided
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 11, 2014
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?