Aguayo v. Katavich

Filing 14

ORDER To SHOW CAUSE Why The Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Plaintiff's Failure To Comply With The Court's Order (Docs. 7 , 10 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/8/2014. Show Cause Response due by 1/24/2014.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:13-cv-01454-JLT (PC)

ALEX AGUAYO,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN N. KATAVICH,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT'S ORDER
(Docs. 7, 10)

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, Alex Aguayo ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 30, 2013, the

19

Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable claims, dismissing

20

the Complaint, and granting leave for Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within twenty-

21

one days. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a 45 day extension of time to file an

22

amended complaint which was granted. (Docs. 8, 10.) More than 45 days have passed and

23

Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court's Order.

24

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or

25

of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the

26

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

27
28

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a
court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of
1

1

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,

2

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

3

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

4

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

5

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

6

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

7

prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service

8
9
10

of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s
order.

11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13

Dated:

January 8, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2