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)

Download PDF
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

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?