Williams v. CDCR Department Corrections and Rehabilitations et al

Filing 28

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 12/15/15. 21-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VINCE WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
CDCR DEPT. CORR. & REHAB, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

1:14-cv-01912-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. 23, 26)
21-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Vince Williams, 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 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended

19

Complaint. (Doc. 22.) On October 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the Second Amended

20

Complaint as it failed to state any cognizable claims and granted leave for Plaintiff to file a third

21

amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff requested a 30-day extension of time

22

to file a third amended complaint since he was soon to be paroled. (Doc. 24.) This Court did not

23

find this to be good cause for the extension of time and denied the request. (Doc. 26.) Thus,

24

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint was due on December 3, 2015. More than thirty days have

25

passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court's

26

Order.

27

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or

28
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, within 21 days the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the action

13

should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order and a strike imposed since

14

he failed to state a cognizable claim.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 15, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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