Gaines v. City of Bakersfield

Filing 7

ORDER to PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/23/2014. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIM JOHN GAINES,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01876 - AWI - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY
WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

16
17

Tim John Gaines (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 17, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint with

19

leave to amend, finding Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff was granted

20

thirty days from the date of service, or until January 16, 2013 to file an amended complaint. To date,

21

Plaintiff has failed to file his First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

22

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

23

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

24

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

25

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

26

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

27

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

28

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.
1

1

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

2

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

3

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

4

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

5

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of

6

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order, or in

7

the alternative, to file an amended complaint.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 23, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2