Stine v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 13

ORDER To SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure To Comply With Court Order (ECF No. 12 ), Thirty (30) Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/17/2014. Show Cause Response due by 12/22/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIKEAL STINE,

12
13
14
15
16

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01883-MJS
Plaintiff,

v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER
(ECF NO. 12)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

17
18

Plaintiff Mikeal Stine is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal

20

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for the violation of

21

civil rights by federal actors. (ECF No. 1.) On September 25, 2014, Plaintiff was granted

22

thirty days to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he is willing to

23

proceed only on the cognizable claims identified in his First Amended Complaint. (ECF

24

No. 12.) The thirty day deadline has passed without a response from Plaintiff.

25

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

26

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

27

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

28
1

1

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may

2

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal [of a case].” Thompson v.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order requiring that, by not later than

11

October 25, 2014, he file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to

12

proceed on his cognizable claims.

13

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

14

1.

Within thirty (30) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show

15

cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s

16

September 25, 2014 Order, file an amended complaint, or notify the Court of his

17

willingness to proceed on his cognizable claims; and

18
19

2.

If Plaintiff fails to show cause or otherwise respond as directed, this action

will be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with a court order.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 17, 2014

/s/

23

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2