Whitfield v. Bowman Asphalt Company, Inc. et al
Filing
4
ORDER to Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for His Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/9/2014. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STEVEN R. WHITFIELD,
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
BOWMAN ASPHALT COMPANY, et al,
15
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00829 - --- - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR HIS FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER
Steven Whitfield (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in this action. On May 19, 2014, the
18
Court determined Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim, and dismissed the complaint with leave to
19
amend. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within twenty-one days of the
20
date of service, or no later than July 1, 2014. (Id. at 8.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with or
21
otherwise respond to the Court’s order.
22
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
23
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
24
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have
25
inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions
26
including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
27
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
28
an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.
1
1
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order
2
requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)
3
(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th
4
Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
5
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of
6
this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure comply with
7
the Court’s order or, in the alternative, to file an amended complaint.
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 9, 2014
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
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?