Meeker v. California State Parole Office et al

Filing 10

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 5/29/2015. Show Cause Response Deadline: 14 Days. (Arellano, S.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID MEEKER, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 v. CALIFORNIA STATE PAROLE OFFICE and AGENT BEARD, Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01953 - LJO - 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 17 18 Plaintiff asserts Defendants are liable for violations of the “POC”1 and Americans with 19 Disabilities Act. (Doc. 1) The Court reviewed the allegations of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2), and determined Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 9.) The Court 21 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend on April 27, 2015, and ordered Plaintiff to file an 22 amended complaint within twenty-one days from the date of service. (Id. at 5.) To date, Plaintiff has 23 failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 24 25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 26 27 28 1 Based upon the allegations of the complaint, it appears the “POC” refers to the “Parole Outpatient Clinic” program. 1 1 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 2 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 3 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 4 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 5 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 6 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 7 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 8 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 9 Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of 11 service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure 12 comply with the Court’s order or, in the alternative, to file an amended complaint. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 29, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?