Perez v. Junious

Filing 11

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the Action Should Not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order 9 , 10 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 07/30/14. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND PEREZ, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. MAURICE JUNIOUS, Defendant. 1:14-cv-00458-JLT (PC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER (Docs. 9, 10) 21-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff, Raymond Perez, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended 19 Complaint which was not signed. (Doc. 9.) On June 18, 2014, the Court issued an order striking 20 the First Amended Complaint and granting leave for Plaintiff to file a signed first amended 21 complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 10.) More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has 22 failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court's Order. 23 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or 24 of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 25 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 26 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 27 court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of 28 1 1 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, 2 based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 3 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 4 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 5 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 6 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 7 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 8 9 10 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order and for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: July 30, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?