Stine v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 9

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/11/14. Show Cause Response Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

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. 7)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
18

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

19

filed this civil action on November 12, 2013, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

20

Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a

21

remedy for the violation of civil rights by federal actors. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has

22

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.)

23

On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was screened and

24

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 7.) The Court granted

25

Plaintiff thirty days leave to amend. (Id.) The resulting deadline has passed without

26

Plaintiff filing an amended complaint or requesting an extension of time to do so.

27
28
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13
14

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order requiring that he file an amended
complaint by not later than February 3, 2014.

15

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

16

1.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show

17

cause as to why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply

18

with the Court’s December 30, 2013 Order, or file an amended complaint; and

19

2.

If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, this action will

20

be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute, subject

21

to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658

22

F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 11, 2014

/s/

26

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2