Archie Cranford v. Prown #3333

Filing 14

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/11/14: 30-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00910-JLT (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

PROWN,
(Docs. 1, 10, 13)

15

Defendant.
30-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Plaintiff, Archie Cranford, is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 13, 2014. (Doc.

19

1.) The Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and found that it states a

20

cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against Defendant Brown (erroneously sued herein

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

as Jessica Prown) for excessive force and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 8.) Defendant filed a motion for order
requiring Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of his claim(s) he intends to pursue in the
Complaint to assist in fully understanding Plaintiff's allegations against her in this action. (Docs.
10.) On October 31, 2014, an order issued granting Defendant's motion and ordering Plaintiff to
file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 13.) More than thirty days have passed
and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court's Order.
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or
1

1

of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the

2

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

3

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a

4

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

5

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

6

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

7

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

8

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

9

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

10

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

11

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

12

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing within 30 days of the date

13

of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the

14

Court’s order.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 11, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2