Bryson v. Gerson et al

Filing 12

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Certain Defendants Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Obey a Court Order 11 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/31/14: Fourteen (14) Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
SUSAN B. GERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-1979-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
CERTAIN DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY
A COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 11)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

15
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
16
action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. (ECF No. 9.)
17

On September 19, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint,

18
found that he stated a cognizable claim against some but not all of the named
19
defendants, and ordered Plaintiff to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on
20
the cognizable claims or to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.) The deadline has
21
passed without Plaintiff filing an amended complaint, notifying the Court of his
22
willingness to proceed, or seeking an extension of time.
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
28

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.

1

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

2

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

3

to 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 a

6

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure

7

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);

8

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

9

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

10

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

11

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order.

12

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

13

1.

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

14

cause, if any exists, why the Executive Branch, United States of America;

15

the United States Department of Justice; and the United States Attorney for

16

the District of South Carolina should not be dismissed with prejudice for

17

failure to comply with the Court’s September 19, 2014 order; and

18

2.

If Plaintiff fails to show cause, the Court will recommend that the Executive

19

Branch, United States of America; the United States Department of Justice;

20

and the United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina be

21

dismissed with prejudice and that Plaintiff be provided with documents for

22

service upon Defendant Executive Office for United States Attorneys.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 31, 2014

/s/

26

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2