Robertson v. Doe et al

Filing 24

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Show Cause why this Action Should not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/2/15. Fourteen-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES F. ROBERTSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:14-cv-00364-SAB

v.
JOHN DOE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
COURT ORDER
FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Plaintiff Charles F. Robertson filed this action on March 14, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On

18

December 22, 2014, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was screened and Plaintiff was

19

ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he was willing to proceed on

20

the claims found to be cognizable within thirty days. (ECF No. 17.) On January 23, 2015, the

21

action was stayed pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the related cases of Jackson v.

22

California, No. 1:13-cv-01055-LJO-SAB, and Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-

23

LJO-SAB. On October 19, 2015, the stay was lifted and Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended

24

complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable

25

in the December 22, 2014 screening order within fourteen days. More than fourteen days have

26

passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the December 22, 2014

27

order.

28

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules
1

1
2
3
4
5

or with any order of the Court may be ground for imposition by th Court of any and al
r
o
e
y
ds
he
ll
sa
anctions . . . within the inherent po
ower of the Court.” Th Court ha the inhere power to
he
as
ent
o
co
ontrol its doc
cket and ma in the ex
ay,
xercise of th power, im
hat
mpose sanct
tions where appropriate
e,
inc
cluding dism
missal of the action. Ba
e
autista v. Lo Angeles C
os
County, 216 F.3d 837, 8 (9th Cir
6
841
r.
20
000).

6
7
8
9

Accord
dingly, the Court HER
REBY ORDE
ERS PLAIN
NTIFF TO SHOW CA
AUSE within
n
fourteen (14) days of the date of entr of this or
e
ry
rder why this action sho
ould not be d
dismissed for
fai
ilure to com
mply with the October 19 2015 orde Plaintif is forewar
e
9,
er.
ff
rned that th failure to
he
o
sh cause will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecu
how
w
o
n
e
ute.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORD
T
DERED.
Da
ated:

Dec
cember 2, 2015
U
UNITED ST
TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
E

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