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)

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