Kyle Steven Martin v. Sandra Pennywell et al

Filing 8

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case should not be Dismissed with Prejudice for Failure to Comply with Court Order; Fourteen (14) Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/28/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KYLE STEVEN MARTIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-01281-MJS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH COURT ORDER

SANDRA PENNYWELL, et al.,
(ECF No. 7)
Defendants.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
Plaintiff Kyle Steven Martin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
18
action filed July 25, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 5.)
19

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it on August 30, 2013 for

20
failure to state a claim, but gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by not later
21
than September 30, 2013. (ECF No. 7.) The deadline has passed without Plaintiff filing
22
an amended complaint or requesting an extension of time to do so.
23

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

24
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
25
26
27

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.

28
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

8
9

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order requiring that he file an amended
complaint by not later than September 30, 2013.

10

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

11

1.

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

12

cause as to why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply

13

with the Court’s August 30, 2013 Order, or file an amended complaint; and

14

2.

If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, the Court will

15

recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and

16

failure to prosecute, subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

17

1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 28, 2013

/s/

21

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:

22

Michael J. Seng

ci4d6

23
24
25
26
27
28
2