Kyle Steven Martin v. Sandra Pennywell et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KYLE STEVEN MARTIN,
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)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Kyle Steven Martin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action filed July 25, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 5.)
The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it on August 30, 2013 for
failure to state a claim, but gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by not later
than September 30, 2013. (ECF No. 7.) The deadline has passed without Plaintiff filing
an amended complaint or requesting an extension of time to do so.
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 September 30, 2013.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show
cause as to why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply
with the Court’s August 30, 2013 Order, or file an amended complaint; and
If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, the Court will
recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and
failure to prosecute, subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 28, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:
Michael J. Seng
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?